Order Code RL31313
Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Appropriations for FY2003:
District of Columbia
Updated January 9, 2003
Eugene Boyd, Coordinator
Analyst in American National Government
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, consolidated, and continuing) bills,
rescissions, and budget reconciliation bills. The process begins with the President’s budget
request and is bound by the rules of the House and Senate, the Congressional Budget and
Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (as amended), the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990, and
current program authorizations.
This report is a guide to one of the 13 regular appropriations bills that Congress considers
each year. It is designed to supplement the information provided by the House and Senate
Interior Appropriations Subcommittees. 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.crs.gov/products/appropriations/apppage.shtml].

---

Appropriations for FY2003: District of Columbia
Summary
On January 8, 2003, the House approved H. J. Res. 2, extending until January
31, 2003, P.L. 107-229, a continuing appropriations measure. that freezes
appropriations for 11 of the 13 appropriations bills for FY2003 not yet approved by
Congress, including the District of Columbia Appropriations Act for FY2003. In
addition, H.J. Res. 2, would, if approved by the Senate and signed by the President,
allow the District of Columbia to spend $5.8 billion in locally raised funds while
Congress completes action on the proposed $517 million in federal contributions to
the District’s FY2003 budget. The 107th Congress failed to complete action on the
District’s FY2003 Appropriations Act before it adjourned. It passed a continuing
budget resolution, P.L. 107-229, freezing District of Columbia FY2003
appropriations at the FY2002 approved funding level until January 11, 2003. The
measure postponed further congressional consideration of District of Columbia and
several other FY2003 appropriations bills until the start of the 108th Congress.
On October 2, 2002, several days after the submission of a revised FY2003
budget by District officials, the House Appropriations Committee reported the
District of Columbia Appropriations Act for FY2003, H.R. 5521. In response to a
congressionally imposed October 1, 2002 deadline, District of Columbia officials
completed action on a revised budget for FY2003 on September 27, 2002. Passage
of an amended FY2003 budget by District officials was aimed at addressing a $323
million budget shortfall identified by the city’s chief financial officer.
On July 26, 2002, the Senate Appropriations Committee reported S. 2809, the
District of Columbia Appropriations Act for FY2003. The Senate and House bills
include $517 million in special federal payments to the District of Columbia, which
is significantly less than the $592 million requested by the District. The House and
Senate bills include special federal payments of $17 million for the District’s college
access program and $15 million for security and emergency preparedness activities
associated with the city’s status as the national capital. The Senate bill includes $15
million for capital infrastructure development while the House bill includes $24
million, which is less than the $96 million requested by the District.
The House and Senate bills, as reported during the 107th Congress, would have
continued to allow the District to use its local funds to administer a domestic partners
health insurance act approved by the city in 1992. Prior to the passage of the P.L.
107-96, the District of Columbia Appropriations Act for FY2002, Congress
prohibited the implementation of the Health Care Benefits Expansion Act. The Act
allows unmarried couples to register as domestic partners and extends health care
benefits of city employees to unrelated individuals registered as domestic partners.
The House bill would have prohibited local and federal funding of a needle exchange
program, while the Senate bill would have allowed the use of District funds for a
needle exchange in an effort to reduce the spread of HIV/AIDS. In addition, both
bills would have continued congressionally imposed prohibitions on the use of
District or federal funds to prepare a medical marijuana ballot initiative and the use
of federal or District funds for abortion services except in instance of rape or incest.
This report will be updated as warranted.

---

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

---

Contents
Most Recent Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
District of Columbia Financial Condition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Health Care Safety Net Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Budget Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
FY2003: The President’s Budget Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
FY2003: District’s Budget Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
FY2003: Section 302(b) Suballocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Congressional Action on the Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
H.J.Res. 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
S. 2809 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
FY2003 General Provisions, Senate Bill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
H.R. 5521 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
FY2003 General Provisions, House Bill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Key Policy Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Budget Shortfall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Emergency Preparedness and Homeland Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Needle Exchange . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Medical Marijuana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Abortion Provision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Health Care Benefits Expansion Act (Domestic Partners Program) . . . . . . 20
List of Figures
Figure 1. Year-End General Fund Balance: FY1997-FY2001 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
List of Tables
Table 1. Status of District of Columbia Appropriations: FY2003 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Table 2. District of Columbia General and Special Federal Payment Funds:
Proposed FY2003 Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Table 3. District of Columbia General Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Table 4. Emergency Preparedness and Security Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

---

Appropriations for FY2003:
District of Columbia
Most Recent Developments
On January 8, 2003, the House approved H. J. Res. 2, extending until January
31, 2003, P.L. 107-229, a continuing appropriations measure that freezes at the
FY2002 approved funding level appropriations for 11 of the 13 appropriations bill
for FY2003 not yet approved by Congress, including the District of Columbia
Appropriations Act for FY2003. In addition, H.J. Res. 2, would, if approved by the
Senate and signed by the President, allow the District of Columbia to spend $5.8
billion in locally raised funds while Congress completes action on the proposed $517
million in federal contributions to the District’s FY2003 budget. On November 13,
2002, Congress passed H.J.Res. 124, a continuing resolution extending until January
11, 2003, P.L. 107-229, a continuing appropriations measure. The measure
effectively postponed further congressional consideration of District of Columbia
appropriations bill until the start of the 108th Congress. On October 2, 2002, the
House Appropriations Committee reported an original measure, H.R. 5521, the
District of Columbia Appropriations Act for FY2003. The bill would have
appropriated $517 million in special federal assistance for the District of Columbia
and recommended a total city budget of $7.4 billion, including $6.4 billion in
operating expenses ($5.8 billion in operating expenses and $662 million in enterprise
funds) and $1.009 billion in capital outlays. On September 27, 2002, the District of
Columbia submitted a revised budget to address a projected budget shortfall. On
September 17, 2002, the District’s Chief Financial Officer (CFO) notified city
leaders of a potential $323 million budget shortfall facing the city in FY2003. On
July 26, 2002, the Senate Appropriations Committee reported S. 2809, a bill
appropriating funds for the District of Columbia for FY2003 (See Table 1).
Table 1. Status of District of Columbia Appropriations: FY2003
Committee
Conf. Report
Markup
House
House
Senate
Senate
Conf.
Approved
Public
Report
Passage
Report
Passage
Report
Law
House
Senate
House
Senate
H.Rept.
S.Rept.
9/26/02
7/25/02
107-716
107-225

---

CRS-2
Background
Since the phaseout of the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and
Management Assistance Authority (the Authority)1 in September 2001, and the
signing of the District of Columbia Appropriations Act for FY2002, P.L. 107-96, on
December 21, 2001, the District of Columbia government has continued to make
progress in improving the delivery of services and in the city’s long-term financial
health; however, issues remain. Most notably, the city faces a projected budget
shortfall of $323 million for FY2003, if corrective action is not taken. The CFO’s
Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR), released in January 28, 2002,
certified that the city had achieved a $77.6 million budget surplus for FY2001,
resulting in an accumulated General Fund balance of $526 million. This achievement
marks the city’s fifth consecutive year of balanced or surplus budgets. However, the
significance of this achievement has been eroded by the city’s projected fiscal
imbalance of $323 million.
During the last year, the District of Columbia’s elected and appointed leadership
addressed a number of other governance-related issues, including school reform and
medical services for the uninsured. School reform, according to observers, is a work-
in-progress. The new Board of Education has to address a $40 million budget deficit
and issues surrounding special education services and the certification of charter
schools. The downsizing of D.C. General Hospital and the creation of an alternative
health care delivery system for the city’s poor residents was, and continues to be, a
contentious political issue. The financial crisis facing the city’s lead provider of
health care for the city’s indigent population, Greater Southeast Community Hospital,
has raised concerns about the viability of the new system that replaced the city’s
public hospital, D.C. General.
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 (OCFO). Under the law the CFO is charged with producing audited
statements of the city’s financial condition; preparing the city’s annual budget;
borrowing on behalf of the District; collecting receipts, payments, and transactions
for the District; investing the city’s funds; and administering and enforcing tax laws.
Working in concert, the District’s elected political leadership, the presently dormant
Authority and the CFO implemented a series of financial and management reforms.
The District ended FY1997 with a surplus of $186 million. For FY1998, the
city’s budget surplus was $445 million.2 After a 13-week delay, the city’s CFO
1 The Authority is also known as the control board.
2 The District’s FY1998 surplus was, in part, the result of the National Capital Revitalization
Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-33). The Revitalization Act, which improved the city’s fiscal
prospects through the infusion of over $5 billion in federal funds, transferred financial
responsibility for a number of functions to the federal government, including accumulated
pension liability for police, firefighters, teachers, and judges. The act also increased the
(continued...)

---

CRS-3
reported an FY1999 surplus of $135 million. For FY2000, the general fund surplus
was $241 million, and for FY2001, $77.6 million.3
For FY2002, the city faces a projected budget shortfall of $323 million
according to the CFO.4 The shortfall has required significant reductions in city
services including education and human services. On September 17, 2002, the city’s
CFO submitted revised budget estimates for FY2003 to FY2006, which included a
projected deficit of $323 million for FY2003. In response to the CFO’s findings and
at the urging of Congress, the mayor and the city council submitted a revised budget
on September 27, 2002, aimed at addressing the budget shortfall.
The Office of the CFO has played a critical role in the city’s success in
maintaining budget discipline and its return to fiscal health. On January 28, 2002, the
CFO released the city’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) for
FY2001. The report, which is a critical barometer of the city’s financial health,
showed that it had a budget surplus of $77.6 million at the end of FY2001. The
FY2001 CAFR met the CFO’s key objectives of producing an unqualified audit
opinion and a balanced or surplus budget for the fifth consecutive year.
In 2001, the city approved amendments to the D.C. Code making the OCFO a
permanent part of the city’s governing structure. Without such legislation or the
intervention of Congress, the OCFO would have ceased operating on September 30,
2001, the end of the control period.5 In July 2001, a conference committee
considering supplemental appropriations for the District of Columbia for FY2001
offered, but later withdrew, a proposal regarding the District’s Chief Financial
Officer. On June 19, 2001, the city council held a public hearing on the Independence
of the Chief Financial Officer Establishment Act of 2001, B14-0254. The legislation,
which makes the position of CFO permanent; provides for the appointment and
removal of the CFO by the mayor, with the consent of the city council during a non-
control year; and transfers to the CFO the responsibility for the management of all
executive branch agencies involved in managing the city’s finances. The bill was
approved by the Council by a voice vote on July 10, 2001 as legislative act 14-089.
2 (...continued)
federal share for Medicaid from 50% to 70%, and transferred responsibility for housing
District felons to the federal government.
3 Government of the District of Columbia, Office of the Chief Financial Officer.
2001Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR). (Washington: January 28, 2002),
p. 1. Available online at [http://cfo.dc.gov/cafr/2001/index.shtm].
4 Government of the District of Columbia, Office of the Chief Financial Officer. Revised
Revenue Estimates for FY2003-FY2006. (Washington: September 17, 2002) p. 1. Available
online at: [http://cfo.dc.gov/news/2002/september/rev_est_analysis091702.shtm]
5 Under P.L. 104-8 a control period is initiated during any year in which the city fails to
achieve a balanced or surplus budget. A control period is terminated after the city has
produced four consecutive years of balanced or surplus budgets. Administrative authority
reverts to the Mayor. During a control period authority over the operations of the city
government rests with the control board.

---

CRS-4
Figure 1. Year-End General Fund Balance:
FY1997-FY2001
Health Care Safety Net Administration
Reform of the city’s health care delivery system for the poor continues to be a
divisive political issue. During the past two years, the city’s political leadership has
become bitterly divided over the downsizing of D.C. General Hospital, the demise
of the Public Benefit Corporation (PBC), and the restructuring of the city’s health
care delivery system for indigent and uninsured residents of the city. The downsizing
and restructuring of the hospital from a 250-bed advance trauma center to a
community access hospital that treats and releases or transfers patients within 23
hours of admittance spawned a last minute challenge to the mayor’s reelection bid.
Reform in the city’s delivery of health care to the poor was sought by Congress
because of the PBC’s mismanagement of D.C. General Hospital. From 1997 to its
dismantling in 2001, the PBC amassed $109 million in unbudgeted loans from the
city, using its power to borrow from the city’s general fund to cover deficit spending
and defer mounting debt. In addition to these questionable financial management
practices, the PBC had been the subject of newspaper stories detailing questionable
hiring practices, including the hiring of friends and relatives of city council members
and former associates of the Executive Director of the PBC.
The new system administered by the newly created Health Care Safety Net
Administration, which was created with the passage of the Health Care Privatization
Act of 2001 (D.C. Law 14-18) and replaced the PBC, began functioning on April 21,
2001. It provides health care services to District residents with incomes that do not
exceed 200% of the poverty level through the Health Care Alliance, a coalition of
health care providers headed by Greater Southeast Community Hospital, and
including Chartered Health Plan, Unity Health Care, Children’s National Medical
Center, the George Washington University Hospital, and the District of Columbia
Department of Health.

---

CRS-5
Critics of the new plan complained that health care services to the poor would
be severely curtailed, while supporters praised it as responsive and as an effective
means of widening the health care choices of the city’s uninsured while reducing the
cost of care. The effectiveness of the new system has been called into question by
two recent revelations. First, Greater Southeast Community Hospital, the lead
provider of health care services to the city’s indigent population, faces a financial
crisis caused, in some part, by security fraud involving the primary creditor to its
parent company. The hospital’s weakened financial condition has resulted in a
curtailing of services at the hospital and a resulting shift of demand for services to
other hospitals. The hospital’s weakened financial condition also provides new
evidence for critics that the system of privatizing care is flawed.
Second, an October 2, 2002 audit by the city’s Inspector General found
significant problems in the Department of Health’s oversight of the city’s contract
with the Health Care Alliance and the Health Care Alliances administration of the
enrollment process. Specifically, the report noted that the Department of Health had
failed to hire critical personnel in a timely fashion, and the Health Care alliance had
failed to properly screen thousands of ineligible enrollees. The audit found that the
Alliance rolls included individuals with unverified addresses and incomes, third party
insurance, invalid social security numbers, and incomes exceeding enrollment
maximums. Enrollment rules governing eligibility require enrollees to show proof
of District residency, have incomes less than 200% of the poverty level, and have no
other health coverage, including Medicaid. Supporters of the city’s health care
privatization efforts contend that the system is superior to the one it replaced – D.C.
General – the city’s public hospital.
Budget Request
FY2003: The President’s Budget Request
On February 4, 2002, the Bush Administration released its FY2003 budget
recommendations. The Administration’s proposed budget included $378.8 million
in federal payments to the District of Columbia.6 An overwhelming percentage of
the President’s proposed federal payments and assistance to the District involve the
courts and criminal justice system. This includes $161.9 million for the Court
Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia, an
independent federal agency that has assumed management responsibility for the
District’s pretrial services, adult probation, and parole supervision functions. In
addition, the Administration requested $159 million in support of court operations,
and $32 million for Defender Services. These three functions (court operations,
defender services, and offender supervision) represent $352.9 million, or 93.2% of
the President’s proposed $378.8 million in federal payments to the District of
Columbia (see Table 2).
6 U.S. Office of the President. Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2003
Appendix (Washington, GPO, 2002), p. 1096-1108.

---

CRS-6
FY2003: District’s Budget Request
On June 4, 2002, District officials transmitted the city’s $5.8 billion budget for
FY2003 to the President for review and approval. On July 11, 2002, the Bush
Administration transmitted the city’s budget to Congress for its review and approval.
The city’s initial operating budget included a $70 million reserve fund. In addition,
the District’s budget would have decreased local funding for public education by $48
million while seeking $23.2 million in special federal payments for charter school
financing, early childhood education, and special education. The District’s initial
budget also would have increased funding for human support services by $680
million and for general government support by $42.6 million.
On September 27, 2002, the District submitted an amended budget for FY2003,
intended to address a $323 million projected deficit. The District’s Fiscal Year 2003
Budget Request Amendment Act, A14-46, would partially address the budget deficit
by reducing total operating expenses by approximately 3.5%. The proposed
reductions included government support activities (6.4%), economic development
activities (8.7%), public safety (3.5%), public education (3.4%) and human services
(3.6%). The amended budget must be approved by Congress (see Table 3). The
District of Columbia Appropriations Act for FY2003 is one of several appropriations
bills that the 107th Congress did not pass. It has been included in a series of
continuing appropriations.
FY2003: Section 302(b) Suballocation
Section 302(a) of the Congressional Budget Act requires that the House and
Senate pass a concurrent budget resolution establishing an aggregate spending ceiling
(budget authority and outlays) for each fiscal year. These ceilings are used by House
and Senate appropriators as a blueprint for allocating funds. Section 302(b) of the
Congressional Budget Act of 1974 requires appropriations committees in the House
and Senate to subdivide their Section 302(a) allocation of budget authority and
outlays among the 13 appropriations subcommittees. The House Appropriations
Committee approved a Section 302(b) suballocation of $517 million in budget
authority for FY2003 for the District of Columbia.
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 agreed to by the House and the Senate. After this final action, the
District’s budget is forwarded to the President, who can sign it into law or veto it.
H.J.Res. 2. On January 8, 2003, the 108th Congress, approved a joint
resolution, H.J.Res. 2, extending P.L. 107-229, through January 31, 2003. P.L. 107-
229, is a continuing budget resolution that freezes appropriations for 11
appropriations bills for FY2003 at their FY2002 budget levels. Section 7 of

---

CRS-7
H.J.Res.2, if approved by the Senate and signed by the President, would allow the
District to spend $5.8 billion in locally raised funds for operating expenses in
accordance with the city’s revised financial plan and budget for FY2003. Congress
must still approve $517 million in federal payments and must address the differences
in House and Senate general provisions. Although local officials expressed relief
that Congress was moving to release that portion of the District of Columbia budget
financed with locally raised funds, the District’s Delegate to Congress contends that
the delay in approving the city’s budget argued for increased budget autonomy for the
city in spending its own locally raised funds.
Table 2. District of Columbia General and Special
Federal Payment Funds: Proposed FY2003 Appropriations
(in millions of dollars)
FY2003
House
Senate
Enacted
City’s
Approp. Approp.
Programs
FY2002
Admin.
Budget
Comm.
Comm.
Conf.
Federal Payments: General and Special Fund
Resident Tuition Program
17.0
17.0
17.0
17.0
17.0
D.C. Courts Operation
112.2
159.0
159.0
160.5
173.2
— Court Operations
[105.7]
[127.4]
[127.4]
[160.5]
[131.0]
— Court of Appeals
[8.0]
[8.3]
[8.3]
[8.4]
[8.5]

— Guard. ad Litem
—
—
—
—
[1.5]
Program

— Superior Court
[66.1]
[80.1]
[80.1]
[80.1]
[81.3]

— Court system:
[31.6]
[38.9]
[38.9]
[40.4]
[39.7]
— Capital improvements
[6.5]
[31.6]
[31.6]
[31.7]
[42.2]
—Family Court
24.02
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

— Superior Court
[23.3]
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
— Mayor
[0.7]
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
— Child and Family
[0.5]
0.0
[1.1]
0.0
Service Agency
Defender Services
34.3
32.0
32.0
32.0
37.0
Court Services and Offender
147.3f
161.9
161.9
154.7
154.7
Supervision Agency for the
District of Columbiab
— Community Supervision
[94.1]
[100.6]
[100.6]
[95.7]
[95.7]
and Sex Offender Registry
— Public Defender Service
[20.8]
[23.9]
[23.9]
[23.1]
[23.1]
— Pretrial Service Agency
[32.4]
[37.3]
[37.3]
[36.0]
[36.0]
Court Appointed Special
0.25
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Advocate
Corrections Trustee for
30.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Operations

---

CRS-8
FY2003
House
Senate
Enacted
City’s
Approp. Approp.
Programs
FY2002
Admin.
Budget
Comm.
Comm.
Conf.
— Case processing
[1.0]
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
— Lorton sewage treatment
[1.5]
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
plant closing
— Lorton Building
[0.5]
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
renovations
Public Works Transportation.
—
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Management System Initiatives
Emergency Planning and
16.06
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
Security
— Development of an
— — — —
—
Emergency Ops. Plan
— Emergency Plan
— — —
—
—
Implementation
— World Bank/IMF
[3.4]
—
—
—
—
reimbursement
Federal Water and Sewer
— 0.0
50.0
50.0
0.0
Authority Payment
D.C. Public Schools
2.5
0.0
23.2
14.0
0.0
g
— Voyager Expanded
[2.0]
0.0
0.0
0.0
Learning Literacy
— Failure Free Reading
[0.25]
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Literacy
— Lightspan, Inc.,
[0.25]
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
eduTest.com
— Special Education
—
0.0
[5.0]
[5.0]
0.0
Transportation Services
— Special Education
—
0.0
[9.0]
[9.0]
0.0
Satellite Facilities
— Office of Early
—
0.0
[2.0]
0.0
0.0
Childhood Education
— D.C.Youth Orchestra
—
0.0
[0.2]
0.0
0.0
— Y Care Program
—
0.0
[2.0]
0.0
0.0
— Credit Enhancement
—
0.0
[5.0]
16.0
0.0
Revolving Fund
Capital Infrastructure Develop.
—
0.0
96.0
24.3
15.1
— Eastern Mkt. Renov.
[0.05c]
0.0
[0.15]
[0.15]
[0.1]
— Downtown Circulator
—
0.0
[15.0]
0.0
0.0
— Waterside Mall Street
— 0.0
[7.0]
0.0
0.0
Extension
— McKinley Tech. Ctr.
—d 0.0
[7.0]
0.0
0.0

---

CRS-9
FY2003
House
Senate
Enacted
City’s
Approp. Approp.
Programs
FY2002
Admin.
Budget
Comm.
Comm.
Conf.
— Kenilworth Parkside
note
0.0
[15.0]
0.0
0.0
Athletic Complex
— Crime lab/public health
—
0.0
[30.0]
[5.0]
[5.0e]
lab./ morgue
— Unified Comm. Center.
—
0.0
[22.0]
[19.1]
[10.0]
for Regional Emergencies
and other activities
Technology Development
—
0.0
6.7
0.0
0.0
— Info. and Compliance
—
0.0
[3.2]
0.0
0.0
Clearinghouse
— E-Filing and Tax
—
0.0
[3.7]
0.0
0.0
Payment System
WMATA Metro Rehab.
—
0.0
21.6
0.0
0.0
Child and Family Services
—
0.0
10.0
0.0
0.0
— Family Literacy Program
—
0.0
[5.0]
5.0
4.0
—Incentives for the
5.0
0.0
[5.0]
0.0
0.0
adoption of children in
foster care
— Adoption
[2.0]
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
— Scholarship
[1.0]
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
— Resource Center
[1.0]
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
— Incentives for Special
[1.0]
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Needs Children
Anacostia Waterfront Initiative
—
0.0
0.0
0.0
58.0
— Kenilworth Park
—f
0.0
0.0
0.0
8.0
Recreation Facilities
— Water and Sewer Auth.
note
0.0
0.0
50.0
50.0
Sewer Overflow Program
D.C. Charter School Facilities
—
0.0
0.0
0.0
20.0
Children’s National Medical
5.5
0.0
0.0
[5.0]g
5.0
Center
St. Coletta expansion
2.0
0.0
0.0
[2.0]g
2.0
CFO
8.3
0.0
0.0
23.4
15.0
— Project Reality
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
— Friends of Ft. Dupont
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
— Congressional Cemetery
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
— Voyager Expanded
0.0
0.0
0.0
[0.25]
0.0
Learning Literacy
—Best Friends Foundation
0.0
0.0
0.0
[0.25]
0.0

---

CRS-10
FY2003
House
Senate
Enacted
City’s
Approp. Approp.
Programs
FY2002
Admin.
Budget
Comm.
Comm.
Conf.
—National Music Center
0.0
0.0
0.0
[0.25]
0.0
and Museum Foundation
—National Council of
0.0
0.0
0.0
[0.25]
0.0
Negro Women
—International Youth
0.0
0.0
0.0
[0.3]
0.0
Service and Dev. Corps.
— Public Access Channel
0.0
0.0
0.0
[0.3}
0.0
Future Producers Program
—Criminal Justice
0.0
0.0
0.0
[0.3]
0.0
Coordinating Council
— National Negro College
0.0
0.0
0.0
[0.5]
0.0
Fund
—Emergency Management,
0.0
0.0
0.0
[0.5]
0.0
Inc. evacuation planning
—G. Washington Univ.
0.0
0.0
0.0
[0.5}
0.0
Risk management and Univ
of New Orleans Hazards
Assessment
—Washington Center for
0.0
0.0
0.0
[0.5]
0.0
Best Practice College
Awareness Program
—Caribbean Amer.
0.0
0.0
0.0
[0.5]
0.0
Mission for Edu. Research
—Whitman Walker Clinic
0.0
0.0
0.0
[1.0]
0.0
—Washington CoG
0.0
0.0
0.0
[1.0]
0.0
Regional Incident Comm
and Coordination
—Council of Court
0.0
0.0
0.0
[1.0]
0.0
Excellence
—National Institute for
0.0
0.0
0.0
[2.0]
0.0
Manufacturing Sciences for
infrastructure vulnerability
assessment
—Canal Park Dev. Assoc.
0.0
0.0
0.0
[2.0]
0.0
— Active Cap River
[2.25]
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Cleanup
— U.S. Soccer
[0.5f]
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Kenilworth Sports
— One Economy Corp.
[0.6]
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
— Langston Project
[0.5]
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
— Green Door
[1.0]
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
— City Museum
[0.5]
0.0
0.0
[0.5]
0.0
— Teach for America
[0.2]
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

---

CRS-11
FY2003
House
Senate
Enacted
City’s
Approp. Approp.
Programs
FY2002
Admin.
Budget
Comm.
Comm.
Conf.
— Child Passenger Safety
[0.35]
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
–– Eastern Market.
[0.05]
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Renovation Study
—Excel Institute for
0.0
0.0
0.0
[1.0]
0.0
operational expenses
—Excel Institute &National
0.0
0.0
0.0
[0.35]
0.0
Center for Manufacturing
Sciences Job Training
—Excel Institute Adult
[1.0]
0.0
0.0
[0.4]
0.0
Education Program
— Woodlawn Cemetery
[0.3]
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Restoration
— Real World Schools
[0.25]
0.0
0.0
[1.0]
0.0
— Mentoring and hotline
[0.3]
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
— Values training
[0.25]
0.0
0.0
[0.25]
0.0
— Character building
[0.25]
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Capitol City Career Development
0.5
0.0
0.0
[0.5]g
0.0
and Job Training
Potomac Southwest Waterfront
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
Lorton Asbestos Remediation
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
0.0
Capitol Education Fund
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Metro. Kappa Youth
0.45
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Development Foundation
Capital Improvements for Fire
0.5
0.0
0.0
2.0
0.0
and Emer. Med. Services Dept.
Chief Medical Examiner
0.585
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Youth Life Foundation
0.25
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Food for Friends Program
2.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
City Administrator
0.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Chief Technology Officer
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Southeastern Univ./ McKinley
0.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Tech Partnership
Thurgood Marshall Academy
1.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Charter School
G. Washington University Center
0.25
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
for Excellence in Municipal
Management
Law Enforcement Mobile
1.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Wireless Interoperational
— CTO
[0.4]
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0

---

CRS-12
FY2003
House
Senate
Enacted
City’s
Approp. Approp.
Programs
FY2002
Admin.
Budget
Comm.
Comm.
Conf.
— U.S. Secret Service
[0.33]
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
— U.S. Capitol Police
[0.33]
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
— U.S. Park Police
[0.33]
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Faith and Politics Institute
0.05
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Poplar Point Brownfield
3.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Remediation
— Environmental
[2.15]
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
assessment
— Anacostia Park entrance
[1.3]
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Enforcement of law banning
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
tobacco possession by minors
Total federal payments
407.9
378.7
592.4
517.0
517. 0
a In previous years, funds would be provided as part of District of Columbia court operations. Congress
created a separate appropriation to ensure payment of attorneys representing indigent persons, guardianship,
and abused and neglected children in court proceedings.
b Certified as a federal agency on August 14, 2000.
c In FY2002 funds awarded under separate heading to the CFO for a feasibility study of Eastern Market
renovation.
d FY2002 appropriations included $0.5 million for Southeastern University and McKinley Technology
Center funding.
e $5 million would be made available in FY2003 to fund the crime lab activities only.
Allows courts to reallocate not more than $1 million among activities funded under this heading.
f $0.5 million was appropriated to CFO in FY2002 for soccer facilities at Kenilworth Park.
g Funds administered under the CFO account.
S. 2809. On July 26, 2002, the Senate Appropriations Committee reported S.
2809, the District of Columbia Appropriations Act for FY2003. The bill includes
$517 million in special federal payments and contributions to the District. The
majority of the funds will be used for courts, prisons, and offender supervision-
related activities. The Senate Appropriations Committee also included $15 million
for emergency planning and response activities, and an additional $15 million for
capital infrastructure projects that would support the creation of a unified
communications center to serve all D.C. first responders ($10 million) and a state-of-
the-art forensic laboratory ($5 million). The Committee also included $58 million
for the Anacostia Waterfront Initiative. Of this amount $5 million would be used to
develop parks and recreational facilities at Kenilworth Park and $50 million would
be used to design and rebuild the water and sewer system that serves the nation’s
capital. These funds would be matched by local funds. The House bill does not
include funding for the initiative.
FY2003 General Provisions, Senate Bill. During its consideration of the
bill, the Senate Appropriations Committee included a provision that would remove
the prohibition on the use of District funds for costs associated with implementing
the District’s Health Care Benefits Expansion Act of 1992. The act allows a District

---

CRS-13
employee to include a cohabitating, but unrelated, person on the employee’s health
insurance plan. The law also allows unrelated heterosexual and homosexual couples
to register as domestic partners. The Committee also reduced the number of general
provisions included in the bill to 36 from the 41 included in the FY2002
Appropriations Act. It retained a number of provisions that District officials wanted
eliminated or modified, including those related to medical marijuana, abortion, and
needle exchange programs.
H.R. 5521. The House Appropriations Committee reported out its version of
the District of Columbia Appropriations Act for FY2003, H.R. 5521, on October 2,
2002, several days after the District submitted a revised budget for FY2003. The
House bill includes $517 million in special federal payments for the District of
Columbia. Like its Senate counterpart, the bill includes $17 million for a college
tuition assistance plan, $15 million for security planning, and $154 million for court
services and offender supervision. The House bill includes $14 million in special
federal payments to the D.C. public schools and $24 million for capital infrastructure
projects. The District requested $96 million for such activities.
FY2003 General Provisions, House Bill. The House Appropriations
Committee included a provision that would remove the prohibition on the use of
District funds for costs associated with implementing the District’s Health Care
Benefits Expansion Act of 1992. The provision was also included in the Senate
version of the bill. Like its Senate counterpart, the House bill retained a number of
provisions that District officials wanted to eliminate or modify, including those
related to medical marijuana, abortion, and needle exchange programs.
Table 3. District of Columbia General Funds
(in millions of dollars)
FY2003
Enacted
District
Programs
FY2002
Initial Amended
House Senate Conf.
Division of Expenses: District of Columbia Funds
GENERAL FUND
Governmental Direction and
322.714
280.138
262.310
303.586
295.136
Support
Economic Development and
231.895
267.532
244.360
258.539
258.539
Regulation
Public Safety and Justice
637.993
639.895
617.584
639.892
639.892
Public Education System
1,152.014 1,200.200
1,159.988
1,257.201 1,220.201
Human Support Services
1,816.470 2,527.766
2,439.018
2,474.297 2,500.297
Public Works
314.093
324.828
319.782
324.828
324.828
Receivership Programs
416.460
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Workforce Investments
42.896
54.186
48.186
54.186
54.186
Reserve Fund
120.000
70.000
70.000
70.0
70.000
Reserve Relief
30.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Emergency Planning and
16.058
15.000
15.000
15.000
15.000
Security Costs
Repayment of Loans and Interest 247.902
267.451
260.951
267.451
267.451

---

CRS-14
FY2003
Enacted
District
Programs
FY2002
Initial Amended
House Senate Conf.
Repayment Gen. Fund Recovery
39.300
39.300
39.300
39.300
39.300
Debt
Pay Interest on Short Term
0.500
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
Borrowing
Presidential Inauguration
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Wilson Building
8.859
4.194
4.194
4.194
4.194
Tobacco Settlement Trust Fund
33.254
50.867
49.867
10.000
10.000
Transfer
One Judiciary Square Certificate
0.0
7.950
7.950
7.950
7.950
of Participation
Non-departmental Agency
5.799
5.799
5.799
5.799
5.799
Pay-As-You-Go Capital
0.0
16.750
0.0
16.750
16.750
Settlements and Judgements
0.0
22.822
22.822
22.822
0.0
Capital Infrastructure Investment
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
15.100
General Fund Total Operating 5,436.207 5,795.678 5,568.111 5,772.795 5,768.445
Expenses
Enterprise Funds
Water and Sewer Authority
244.978
253.743
253.743
253.743
253.743
Washington Aqueduct
46.510
57.847
57.847
57.847
57.847
Stormwater Permit Compliance
2.151
3.100
3.100
3.100
3.100
Lottery and Charitable Games
229.688
232.881
232.881
232.881
232.881
Sports and Enter. Commission
9.627
15.510
15.510
15.510
23.510
DC Public Benefit Corp.
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
DC Retirement Board
13.388
13.388
13.388
13.388
13.388
Convention Center Enterprise
57.278
78.700
78.700
78.700
78.700
Fund
Housing Finance Agency
4.711
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
National Capital Revitalization
2.673
4.908
4.908
6.745
6.745
Corporation
Total Enterprise Funds
611.953
660.077
660.077
661.914
661.914
Total Operating Expenses
6,048.160 6,455.755
6,228.188
6,434.709 6,438.359
Capital Outlay
General Fund
1,074.604
504.047
504.047
666.368
639.070
Water and Sewer Fund
152.114
292.458
392.458
342.458
342.458
Total Capital Outlays
1,226.718
796.505
896.505
1,008.826
981.528
Total District of Columbia
7,274.878 7,252.260
7,124.693
7,443.535 7,419.887
Funds

---

CRS-15
Key Policy Issues
Budget Shortfall
According to the city’s CFO, the District faces a projected FY2003 budget
deficit of $323 million. This revenue shortfall can, in part, be attributable to the
residual effects of the attacks of September 11, 2001, which reduced tourism,
convention, and business travel income. Other factors such as a slowing economy,
lower returns on investments, and overspending in such areas as public education
also have contributed to the looming deficit. With a deadline of October 1, 2002, the
start of the 2003 fiscal year, city leaders, in order to avoid congressional intervention
or the possible resurrection of the control board, developed an acceptable plan that
may close the revenue and expenditure gap.
City officials considered several options aimed at addressing the projected $323
million deficit. The mayor and city council considered action that would:
! reduce expenditures;
! increase taxes and fees;
! access the reserve fund; or
! any combination of the three.
If city leaders are unable to fashion a plan, the city faces the possibility that
Congress will intervene and make the cuts. According to press reports, the most
likely plan will include significant cuts in the 10 agencies with the largest budgets
including education, health, and human services.7 Cuts in these areas will affect
children and the poor. It may also involve a significant reduction in the city’s work
force and the deferring of employee wage increases, planned capital expenditures or
program increases. The city is asking unions to temporarily put off raises built into
their contracts for FY2003, which begins October 1, 2002. The raises average about
4% with police raises at 5%. According to estimates by the Williams administration,
if the unions agree to a four-month delay, for instance, it might save the city $8
million to $10 million.8
If the city chooses tax and fee increases, the mostly likely could be on alcohol,
hotel, and tobacco. According to Jack Evans, chair of the city council’s Finance and
Revenue Committee, increases in general sales or property taxes could prove
politically unpopular, since city residents are among the most heavily taxed in the
nation.9 The city could also roll back planned income tax relief.
7 David Nakamura, “D.C. Targets Schools To Eliminate Deficit: Tax Increases, Program
Cuts Weighed,” Washington Post, Sept. 14, 2002, p. B1.
8 David Fahrenthold, “D.C. Suggests Delaying Pay Raises,”Washington Post, September
20, 2002, p. B5.
9 Craig Timberg. “D.C. Must Fix $323 Million Deficit by Oct. 1.,” Washington Post.
September 18, 2002, p. B3.

---

CRS-16
Another option is the use of the city reserve funds. It should be noted that the
District of Columbia Appropriations Act of 2002, P.L. 107-96 and the D.C. Code
(§1-204.50a) require the District, when using reserve funds to close a budget gap in
a given fiscal year, replenish the fund the following fiscal year. Currently, the city’s
CFO projects annual budget deficits for the next four years that may reach as much
as $351 million in FY2006.10
Emergency Preparedness and Homeland Security
In addition to the $15 million earmarked for emergency planning and security,
the city’s budget includes additional emergency planning and homeland security
related funding. Specially, the city requested $22 million for a unified
communications system for regional emergencies. The House bill includes $39.6
million, including $19 million for a unified regional emergency communications
center.
Table 4. Emergency Preparedness and Security Funding
FY2003
House
Senate
Enacted
City’s
Approp. Approp.
Programs
FY2002
Admin. Budget
Comm.
Comm.
Conf.
Emergency Planning and
16.06
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
–
Security
Unified Communications Center
0.0
0.0
22.0
19.1
10.0
–
for Regional Emergencies and
Other Activities
Emergency Management, Inc.
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.0
–
Evacuation Planning
George Washington Univ. Risk
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.0
–
Management and Univ. of New
Orleans Hazards Assessment
National Institute for Manuf.
0.0
0.0
0.0
2.0
0.0
–
Sciences Infrastructure
Vulnerability Assessment
Emergency Management, Inc.
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.5
0.0
–
Evacuation Planning
Capital Improvements for Fire
0.5
0.0
0.0
2.0
0.0
–
and Emer. Med. Services Dept.
Total
16.56
15.0
37.0
39.6
15.0
–
10 Government of the District of Columbia, Office of the Chief Financial Officer. Revised
Revenue Estimates for FY2003-FY2006. (Washington: September 17, 2002), p. 1.
Available online at: [http://cfo.dc.gov/news/2002/September/rev_est_analysis091702.shtm],
visited September 19, 2002.

---

CRS-17
Needle Exchange
Whether to continue a needle exchange program funded with federal or District
funds is one of several key policy issues that Congress will likely consider when
reviewing the District’s appropriations for FY2003. The controversy surrounding
funding a needle exchange program touches on issues of home rule, public health
policy, and government sanctioning and facilitating the use of illegal drugs.
Proponents of a needle exchange program contend that such programs reduce the
spread of HIV among illegal drug users by reducing the incidence of shared needles.
Opponents of these efforts contend that such programs amount to government
sanctioning of illegal drugs by supplying drug-addicted persons with the tools to use
them. In addition, they contend that public health concerns raised about the spread
of AIDS and HIV through shared contaminated needles should be addressed through
drug treatment and rehabilitation programs. Another view in the debate focuses on
the issue of home rule and the city’s ability to use local funds to institute such
programs free from congressional actions.
The prohibition on the use of federal and District funds for a needle exchange
program was first approved by Congress as Section 170 of the District of Columbia
Appropriations Act for FY1999, P.L. 105-277. The 1999 Act did allow private
funding of needle exchange programs. The District of Columbia Appropriations Act
for FY2001, P.L. 106-522, continued the prohibition on the use of federal and
District funds for a needle exchange program, and restricted where privately funded
needle exchange activities could take place. Section 150 of the District of Columbia
Appropriations Act for FY2001 made it unlawful to distribute any needle or syringe
for the hypodermic injection of any illegal drug in any area in the city that is within
1,000 feet of a public elementary or secondary school, including any public charter
school. The provision was deleted during congressional consideration and passage
of the District of Columbia Appropriations Act of FY2002, P.L. 107-96. The act also
included a provision that allows the use of private funds for a needle exchange
program, but prohibits the use of both District and federal funds for such activities.
Presently, only one entity, Prevention Works, a private nonprofit AIDS awareness
and education program, operates a privately funded needle exchange program. The
FY2002 District of Columbia Appropriations Act requires such entities to track and
account for the use of public and private funds.
District officials are seeking to lift the prohibition on the use of District funds
for needle exchange programs. S. 2809, as approved by the Senate Appropriations
Committee, would allow the use of local government funds for needle exchange
programs, but would maintain the prohibition on the use of federal funds. The
House bill, H.R. 5521, would prohibit the use of both District and federal funds for
a needle exchange program.
Medical Marijuana
The medical marijuana initiative provision in the District of Columbia
appropriations legislation is another issue that engenders controversy. The District
of Columbia Appropriations Act for FY1999, P.L. 105-277, included a provision that
prohibited the city from counting ballots of a voter-approved initiative that would

---

CRS-18
have allowed the medical use of marijuana to assist persons suffering debilitating
health conditions and diseases including cancer and HIV infection.
Congress’s power to prohibit the counting of a medical marijuana ballot
initiative was challenged in a suit filed by the D.C. Chapter of the American Civil
Liberties Union (ACLU). On September 17, 1999, District Court Judge Richard
Roberts ruled that Congress, despite its unique legislative responsibility for the
District under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, did not possess the power to
stifle or prevent political speech, which included the ballot initiative.11 This ruling
allowed the city to tally the votes on the November 1998 ballot initiative. To prevent
the implementation of the initiative, Congress had 30 days to pass a resolution of
disapproval from the date the medical marijuana ballot initiative (Initiative 59) was
certified by the Board of Elections and Ethics. Language prohibiting the
implementation of the initiative was included in P.L. 106-113, the District of
Columbia Appropriations Act for FY2000. Opponents of the provision contend that
it and similar actions undercut the concept of home rule.
The District of Columbia Appropriations Act for FY2002, P.L. 107-96, includes
a provision that continues to prohibit the District government from implementing the
initiative. Congress’ power to block the implementation of the initiative was again
challenged in the courts. On December 18, 2001, two groups, the Marijuana Policy
Project and Medical Marijuana Initiative Committee, filed suit in U.S. District Court,
seeking injunctive relief in an effort to put a medical marijuana initiative on the
November 2002 ballot. The District’s Board of Elections and Ethics ruled that a
congressional rider that has been included in the general provisions of each District
appropriation act since 1998 prohibits it from using public funds to do preliminary
work that would put the initiative on the ballot.

On March 28, 2002, a U.S. District Court judge ruled that the congressional ban
on the use of public funds to put such a ballot initiative before the voters was
unconstitutional.12 The judge stated that the effect of the amendment was to restrict
the plaintiff’s First Amendment rights to engage in political speech. The decision was
appealed by the Justice Department and on September 19, 2002, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed the ruling of the lower court
without comment. The three-judge Appeals Court panel stated its decision would be
fully explained in an opinion to be issued at a later date. The Appeals Court noted
that it issued its ruling on September 19, 2002, because that was the deadline for
printing ballots of the November general election.
H.R. 5521 and S. 2809, as reported by House and Senate Appropriations
Committees, would continue the prohibition against the implementation of the
medical marijuana ballot initiative.
11 Turner v. District of Columbia Board of Elections and Ethics. No. 98-2634 Civ. (D.D.C.
Sept. 17, 1999)(memorandum opinion ).
12 Marijuana Policy Project v. District of Columbia Board of Elections and Ethics. No. 01-
2595 Civ. (D.D.C. Mar. 28, 2002)(memorandum opinion, order and judgement). The District
Court’s ruling was reversed on appeal by the United States Court of Appeals District of
Columbia Circuit. The Court ruled without comment.

---

CRS-19
Abortion Provision
The public funding of abortion services for District of Columbia residents is a
perennial issue debated by Congress during its annual deliberations on District of
Columbia appropriations. District officials cite the prohibition on the use of District
funds as another example of congressional intrusion into local matters. The District
of Columbia Appropriations Act for FY2002, P.L. 107-96, included a provision
prohibiting the use of federal or District funds for abortion services, except in cases
where the life of the mother is endangered or the pregnancy is the result of rape or
incest. This prohibition has been in place since 1995, when Congress approved the
District of Columbia Appropriations Act for FY1996, P.L. 104-134.
Since 1979, with the passage of the District of Columbia Appropriations Act of
1980, P.L. 96-93, Congress has placed some limitation or prohibition on the use of
public funds for abortion services for District residents. From 1979 to 1988,
Congress restricted the use of federal funds for abortion services to cases where the
mother’s life would be endangered or the pregnancy resulted from rape and incest.
The District was free to use District funds for abortion services.
When Congress passed the District of Columbia Appropriations Act for FY1989,
P.L. 100-462, it restricted the use of District and federal funds for abortion services
to cases where the mother’s life would be endangered if the pregnancy was taken to
term. The inclusion of District funds, and the elimination of rape or incest as
qualifying conditions for public funding of abortion services, was endorsed by
President Reagan, who threatened to veto the District’s appropriations act if the
abortion provision was not modified.13 In 1989, President Bush twice vetoed the
District’s FY1990 appropriations act over the abortion issue. He signed P.L. 101-168
after insisting that Congress include language prohibiting the use of District revenues
to pay for abortion services except in cases where the mother’s life was endangered.14

The District successfully fought for the removal of the provision limiting
District funding of abortion services when Congress considered and passed the
District of Columbia Appropriations Act for FY1994, P.L. 103-127. The FY1994 Act
also reinstated rape and incest as qualifying circumstances allowing for the public
funding of abortion services. The District’s success was short lived. The District of
Columbia Appropriations Act for FY1996, P.L. 104-134, and subsequent District of
Columbia appropriations acts, limited the use of District and federal funds for
abortion services to cases where the mother’s life is endangered or cases where the
pregnancy was the result of rape or incest.
The prohibition on the use of District and federal funds is included in the House
and Senate Appropriations Committees’ version of the District of Columbia
Appropriations Act for FY2003.
13 Congressional Quarterly, Inc., District Policies Hit Hard in Spending Bill, Congressional
Quarterly Almanac, vol. XLIV, 1988, p. 713.
14 Congressional Quarterly, Inc., D.C. Bill Vetoed Twice Over Abortion Funding,
Congressional Quarterly Almanac, vol. XLV, 1989, p. 757.

---

CRS-20
Health Care Benefits Expansion Act
(Domestic Partners Program)
P.L. 107-96 includes a provision lifting the congressional prohibition on the use
of District funds to implement its Health Care Benefits Expansion Act.15 The
provision permits unmarried heterosexual and homosexual couples to register as
domestic partners. Under the Health Care Benefits Expansion Act, which was
approved by the city’s elected leadership in 1992, an unmarried person who registers
as a domestic partner of a District employee hired after 1987 may be added to the
District employee’s health care policy for an additional charge. The Act had not been
implemented until 2002 because of a congressional prohibition first included in the
general provisions of District of Columbia Appropriations Act for FY1994.
The city’s Health Care Benefits Expansion Act allows two unmarried and
unrelated individuals to register as domestic partners with the District for the purpose
of securing certain health and family related benefits, including hospital visitation
rights. Under the law, District government employees enrolled in the District of
Columbia Employees Health Benefits Program are allowed to purchase family health
insurance coverage that would cover the employee’s family members, including
domestic partners. In addition, a District employee registered as a domestic partner
may assume the additional cost of the family health insurance coverage for family
members, which would include the employee’s domestic partner.
Opponents of the Act believe that it is an assault on the institution of marriage,
and that the Act grants unmarried gay and heterosexual couples the same standing as
married couples. Congressional proponents of lifting the ban on the use of District
funds argue that the implementation of the Act is a question of home rule and local
autonomy. Supporters of the amendment noted that at least nine states, 136 local
governments, and more than 4,000 companies offer benefits to domestic partners.16
15 On September 20, 2001, the House Appropriations Committee approved, by a vote of 28
to 21, an amendment introduced by Representatives Kolbe and Moran, that removed the
congressional prohibition on the use of District funds for the implementation of the city’s
Health Care Benefits Expansion Act. The Act, which was approved by the city’s elected
leadership in 1992, had not been implemented because of a congressional prohibition first
included in the general provisions of District of Columbia Appropriations Act for FY1994.
On September 25, 2001, during House consideration of H.R. 2944, the House version of the
District of Columbia Appropriations Act for FY2002, Representative Dave Weldon offered
an amendment (H.Amdt. 310) that would have reaffirmed the ban on the use of District
funds to implement the health care expansion program. The Weldon amendment failed by
a vote of 194 to 226. The Senate bill also included a provision that would have allowed the
District to use city, but not federal, funds to implement the District of Columbia Employees
Health Benefits Program. It had not been implemented because of a congressional
prohibition first included in the general provisions of District of Columbia Appropriations
Act for FY1994. The District began implementation of the health care benefits expansion
program on July 8, 2002.
16 Human Rights Campaign Foundation. Frequently Ask Questions on Domestic Partners
Benefits: Employers that Offer Domestic Partners Benefits,
[http://www.hrc.org/worknet/dp/index.asp], visited September 25, 2002.

---

CRS-21
S. 2809 and H.R. 5521, as reported, include a general provision that would allow
the use of District funds to administer the program during FY2003.

---