Order Code RL31813
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Appropriations for FY2004:
District of Columbia
Updated September 11, 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, 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
Appropriations Subcommittees on the District of Columbia Appropriations. 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 FY2004: District of Columbia
Summary
On February 3, 2003, the Bush Administration released its FY2004 budget
recommendations. The Administration’s proposed budget included $420.5 million
in federal payments to the District of Columbia. This includes $166.5 million for the
Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia, an
independent federal agency that has assumed management responsibility for the
District’s pretrial services, adult probation, and parole supervision functions. In
addition, the Administration requested $163.8 million in support of court operations,
and $32 million for Defender Services. These three functions represent 86.3% of the
President’s proposed $420.5 million in federal payments to the District of Columbia.
On July 9, 2003, the Bush Administration transmitted the city’s $5.7 billion
proposed operating budget to Congress for its review and approval. In addition, the
District requested $916 million in special federal payments, including $159 million
for emergency preparedness assistance, $75 million for public safety, $42 million for
public education, and $18 million for human support services targeted primarily to
improvements at the St. Elizabeth Hospital and substance abuse facilities.
On July 17, 2003, the House Appropriations Committee reported H.R. 2765, the
District of Columbia Appropriations Act for FY2004 (H.Rept. 108-214).
On
September 9, 2003, the House approved H.R. 2765 by a vote of 210 to 206 (Roll Call
Vote No. (491). The House bill recommended $466 million in special federal
payments for the District of Columbia. The bill includes $17 million for a college
tuition assistance plan, $15 million for security planning, and $163.1 million for
court services and offender supervision. H.R. 2765 also includes $10 million in
special federal payments for a school choice program designed to provide financial
assistance to families of District school age students attending private and parochial
schools. The bill does not include $48.7 million in funding for public education
requested by the District.
On September 4, 2003, the Senate Appropriations Committee reported S. 1583
(S.Rept. 108-142). As reported, the bill would appropriate $545 million in special
federal payments to the District. This includes $17 million for a college tuition
assistance program; $15 million for emergency planning and security; $10 million
for hospital bioterrorism preparedness; and $377.5 million in court and criminal
justice-related assistance, including $172.1 million for court operations, $32 million
for Defender Services, and $173.4 million for the Court Services and Offender
Supervision Agency.
The House and Senate bills, as reported, would continue to allow the District
to use its local funds to administer a domestic partners health insurance act approved
by the city in 1992, prohibit the use of District or federal funds to prepare a medical
marijuana ballot initiative, and restrict the use of federal or District funds for abortion
services except in instance of rape or incest or a threat to the mother’s health. The
House bill would prohibit the use of local and federal funding for a needle exchange
program, while the Senate bill would allow the use of District funds for such
activities. This report will be updated as warranted.

---

Key Policy Staff
Area of Expertise
Name
CRS
Telephone
Division
DC Education
David Smole
DSP
7-0624
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
Steve Maguire
G&F
7-7841
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
Budget Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
FY2004: The President’s Budget Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
FY2004: District’s Budget Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
FY2004: Section 302(b) Suballocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Congressional Action on the Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
House Version (H.R. 2765) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
FY2004 General Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Key Policy Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Needle Exchange . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Medical Marijuana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Abortion Provision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Health Care Benefits Expansion Act (Domestic Partners Program) . . . . . . 15
Elementary and Secondary Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Special Education . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Charter Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
School Voucher Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
List of Tables
Table 1. Status of District of Columbia Appropriations: FY2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Table 2. District of Columbia Special Federal Payment Funds:
Proposed FY2004 Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Table 3. District of Columbia General Funds for FY2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

---

Appropriations for FY2004:
District of Columbia
Most Recent Developments
On September 9, 2003, the House approved H.R. 2765, the District of Columbia
Appropriations Act for FY2004, by a vote of 210 to 206 (Roll Call Vote 491).
During consideration of the bill, the House approved, by a vote of 209 to 208, a
school voucher program for the District of Columbia ( H.Amdt. 368, Roll Call Vote
No. 490). On September 4, 2003, the Senate Appropriations Committee reported S.
1583 (S.Rept. 108-142), its version of the District of Columbia Appropriations Act
for FY2004. The Senate bill also includes funding for vouchers. The Senate bill
would appropriate $13 million for a voucher program, while the House bill includes
$10 million. The House Appropriations Committee reported H.R. 2765 (H.Rept.
108-214) on July 17, 2004. As passed by the House, H.R. 2765 recommends $466
million in special federal payments to the District of Columbia, while S. 1583
recommends $545 million in special federal payments.
The House bill would provided special federal payments for several education
initiatives, including $17 million for the District’s College Tuition Assistance
Program; $10 million for the District of Columbia Scholarship Program, a school
choice program intended to provide District schoolchildren access to private
elementary and secondary schools; $4.5 million for public school facilities for
playground repair and replacement and window replacement; and $2 million for the
Family Literacy Program, which would be match by the District on a dollar for dollar
basis. The Senate bill includes $13 million for a school voucher program, $17
million for the College Tuition Assistance Program, $13 million for public school
improvements, and $13 million for public charter schools. In addition, H.R. 2765
recommends $358.9 million for criminal justice and court-related activities, while S.
1583 would appropriate $377.5 million for such activities.
Table 1. Status of District of Columbia Appropriations: FY2004
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.
7/17/03
9/4/03
9/9/2003
108-214
108-142

---

CRS-2
Budget Request
FY2004: The President’s Budget Request
On February 3, 2003, the Bush Administration released its FY2004 budget
recommendations. The Administration’s proposed budget included $420.5 million
in federal payments to the District of Columbia.1 A major portion of the President’s
proposed federal payments and assistance to the District involve the courts and
criminal justice system. This includes $166.5 million for the Court Services and
Offender Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia, an independent federal
agency that has assumed management responsibility for the District’s pretrial
services, adult probation, and parole supervision functions.
In addition, the
Administration requested $163.8 million in support of court operations, and $32
million for Defender Services. These three functions (court operations, defender
services, and offender supervision) represent $362.3 million, or 86.3% of the
President’s proposed $420.5 million in federal payments to the District of Columbia
(see Table 2).
FY2004: District’s Budget Request
On June 3, 2003, District officials transmitted the city’s $5.7 billion budget for
FY2004 to the President for review and approval. The proposed budget included a
request for $915.9 million in special federal payments. On July 9, 2003, the Bush
Administration transmitted the city’s budget to Congress for its review and approval.
The city’s proposed operating budget of $5.7 billion includes a $50 million cash
reserve fund. In addition, the District’s budget would decrease 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 activities. It would also decrease funding for general government support
by $19 million and human support services by $92 million, while requesting $18
million in special federal payments for human support services targeted to
improvements at the St. Elizabeth Hospital and substance abuse facilities. The
District also requested special federal payments of $159 million for emergency
preparedness assistance, $75 million for public safety, and $42 million for public
education.
FY2004: 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
1 U.S. Office of the President. Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2004
Appendix (Washington: GPO, 2002), pp. 1020-1021 and 10230-1032.

---

CRS-3
Committee approved a Section 302(b) suballocation of $466 million in budget
authority for FY2004 for the District of Columbia — about half the amount requested
by the District. The Senate Appropriations Committee approved a Section 302(b)
suballocation of $545 million in budget authority for FY2004 for the District of
Columbia. This is $370 million less than requested by the city.
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.
House Version (H.R. 2765). On September 9, 2003, H.R. 2765, the District
of Columbia Appropriations Act for FY2004, was approved by the House by a vote
of 210 to 206 (Roll Call Vote No. 491). During its consideration of the bill, the
House approved a controversial school voucher program. The House Appropriations
Committee reported H.R. 2765 (H.Rept. 108-214) on July 17. In line with the
Committee’s recommendation, the House approved $466 million in special federal
payments for the District of Columbia. The bill includes $17 million for a college
tuition assistance plan, $15 million for security planning, and $163.1 million for
court services and offender supervision. H.R. 2765 also includes $10 million in
special federal payments for a school choice program designed to provide financial
assistance to families of District school-age students attending private and parochial
schools. The $10 million special federal payment is contingent on the passage of
authorizing legislation.
The bill also includes $4.5 million for public school
facilities for playground enhancements and window replacements. The bill does not
include $48.7 million in funding for public education requested by the District,
including $6 million for charter schools and $20 million for special education
students, facilities, and transportation.
FY2004 General Provisions. During the September 5, 2003, House floor
debate on H.R. 2765, the House rejected an amendment (H.Amdt. 367) that would
have deleted the proposed $10 million special federal payment for a school voucher
program. On September 9, 2003, the House approved an amendment (H.Amdt. 368),
introduced by Rep. Tom Davis, that would authorize a school voucher program in the
District of Columbia. In addition, as approved by the House, H.R. 2765 includes 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 (domestic partners program). The House bill retains a number of provisions
that District officials want to eliminate or modify, including those related to medical
marijuana, abortion, and needle exchange programs. For a summary and analysis of
the general provisions contained in H.R. 2765, see CRS Report RL32045, District
of Columbia Appropriations Act for FY2004: Comparison of General Provisions of
P.L. 108-7 and H.R. 2765.

---

CRS-4
Table 2. District of Columbia Special Federal Payment Funds:
Proposed FY2004 Appropriations
(in millions of dollars)
FY2004
House
Senate
Enacted
City’s
Approp.
Approp.
Programs
FY2003
Admin.
Budget
Comm.
Comm.
Conf.
Federal Payments: General and Special Fund
Resident Tuition Program
16.9
17.0
17.0
17.0
17.0
Emergency Planning and
14.9
15.0
15.0
15.0
15.0
Security
Hospital Bioterrorism
9.9
—
—
—
10.0
Preparedness
— Children’s National
[4.9]
—
—
—
[7.0]
Medical Center
decontamination facility
— Wash. Hosp. Center
[4.9]
—
—
—
[3.0]
decontamination facility
D.C. Courts Operation
160.9
163.8
163.8
163.8
172.1
— Court of Appeals
[8.4]
[8.8]
[8.8]
[8.8]
[8.8]
— Superior Court
[80.8]
[83.4]
[83.4]
[83.4]
[83.4]
— Court system
[40.1]
[40.0]
[40.0]
[40.0]
[40.0]
— Capital improvements
[31.5]
[31.7]
[31.7]
[31.7]
[40.0]
Defender Services
33.4
32.0
32.0
32.0
32.0
— Guardian ad litem to
[1.4]
—
—
—
—
abused and neglected children
Court Services and Offender
153.7
166.5
166.5
163.1
173.4
Supervision Agency for the
District of Columbiaa
— Community Supervision
[95.1]
[103.9]
[103.9]
[100.5]
[110.8]
and Sex Offender Registry
— Public Defender Service
[22.9]
[25.2]
[25.2]
[25.2]
[25.2]
— Pretrial Service Agency
[35.7]
[37.4]
[37.4]
[37.4]
[37.4]
Criminal Justice Coordinating
—
1.3
1.3
1.3
0.0
Committee
Federal Water and Sewer
49.6
15.0
50.0
35.0b
25.0
Authority Payment
Anacostia River Walk and Trail
4.9
10.0
10.0
4.3
6.0
Construction
Anacostia Waterfront Initiatives
—
—
31.5
—
—
— Light Rail Anacostia
—
—
[5.0]
—
—
Starter Line
— Anacostia River Crossing
—
—
[2.0]
—
—
& Freeway Study

---

CRS-5
FY2004
House
Senate
Enacted
City’s
Approp.
Approp.
Programs
FY2003
Admin.
Budget
Comm.
Comm.
Conf.
— SW Waterfront
—
—
[1.5]
—
—
Transportation Center
— Heritage-Kingman Island
—
—
[20.0]
—
—
Development Project
Emergency Preparedness
—
—
158.9
—
—
— Mission Critical Agencies
—
—
[28.0]
—
—
— Cyberterrorism
—
—
[8.0]
—
—
Containment
— Info. Security
—
—
[18.5]
—
—
Enhancement
— Unified Comm. Center
—
—
[46.0]
—
—
— Safe Routes Infrastructure
—
—
[15.0]
—
—
— Traffic Signal Controllers
—
—
[41.0]
—
—
— Remote Live Television
—
—
[2.4]
—
—
Public Safety
—
—
75.0
—
—
Human Support Services
—
—
18.2
—
—
— St. Elizabeth Campus
—
—
[8.0]
—
—
— Family Court Liaison
—
—
[0.23]
—
—
— Substance Abuse
—
—
[10.0]
—
—
Residential Treatment Fac.
Capital Infrastructure Develop.
10.1
—
50.0
—
5.0
— Eastern Mkt. Renov.
[0.15]
—
—
—
—
— Unified Comm. Center for
[9.9]
—
— c
8.0
[5.0]c
Regional Emergencies and
other activities
D.C. Public Schools/Education
2.9
—
42.7
4.5
40.0
— Public school improv.
—
—
—
—
[13.0]
— Literacy Program
— d
—
[4.0]
—
—
— Special Education
[2.9]
—
[6.0]
—
—
Satellite Facilities
— Special Education
—
—
[5.0]
—
—
Transportation
— Special Education
—
—
[9.0]
—
—
Students
— McKinley Technology
—
—
[7.0]
—
—
High School
— Early Childhood
—
—
[2.0]
—
—
Education
— Y Care Program
—
—
[2.0]
—
—

---

CRS-6
FY2004
House
Senate
Enacted
City’s
Approp.
Approp.
Programs
FY2003
Admin.
Budget
Comm.
Comm.
Conf.
— Excel Institute
— d
—
[1.25]
—
—
— Children’s Youth
—
—
[0.2]
—
—
Orchestra
— UDC Saturday Academy
—
—
[0.25]
—
—
— Credit Enhancement
— e
—
—
—
—
Revolving Fund
— Playground Repair and
—
—
—
[4.5]
—
Window Replacement
D.C. Public Charter School
16.9
—
6.0
—
13.0
— Pupil allocation
[3.9]
—
—
—
—
supplement
— Charter school
[4.9]
—
—
—
[8.0]
improvements loan fund
— City Build Charter School
—
—
—
—
[5.0]
Initiative
— Credit enhancement
[7.9]
—
—
—
—
revolving fund
School Choice Scholarship
—
— f
—
10.0g
13.0
Program (vouchers)
— admin. expenses
[1.0]
Family Literacy Program
3.9
—
—
2.0b
—
Public Works Transportation.
0.9
—
—
—
—
Management System Initiatives
Transportation
—
—
78.0
—
3.5
— Transit Oriented
—
—
[25.0]
—
—
Enticement Fund
— WMATA Capital Fund
—
—
[50.0]
—
[3.0]
— Downtown Circulator
—
—
—
—
[0.5]
— Bus Rapid Transit Study
—
—
[3.0]
—
—
Children’s National Medical Ctr.
—
—
—
—
10.0
construction of neo-natal center
Foster Care Improvements
—
—
—
—
14.0
— Child and Fam. Services
—
—
—
—
[9.0]
Early intervention unit
—
—
—
—
[2.0]
Emer. support fund
—
—
—
—
[1.0]
Social worker loan
—
—
—
—
[3.0]
repayment
Computer upgrades
—
—
—
—
[3.0]
— Mental Health Assessmts.
—
—
—
—
[3.9]

---

CRS-7
FY2004
House
Senate
Enacted
City’s
Approp.
Approp.
Programs
FY2003
Admin.
Budget
Comm.
Comm.
Conf.
— COG’s Respite Care and
—
—
—
—
[1.1]
Recruitment
CFO
40.5
—
—
10.0
20.0h
— Amer. Univ. Women &
[0.05]
—
—
—
—
Politics Institute
— Project Reality
[0.1]
—
—
—
—
— Friends of Ft. Dupont
[0.1]
—
—
—
—
— Congressional Cemetery
[0.1]
—
—
—
—
— Cap. Children’s Museum
[0.15]
—
—
—
—
— KidBiz 3000
[0.15]
—
—
—
—
— Nat. Maritime Heritage
[0.2]
—
—
—
—
— Voyager Expanded
[2.0]
—
—
—
—
Learning Literacy
— Best Friends Foundation
[0.25]
—
—
—
—
— National Music Center
[0.25]
—
—
—
—
and Museum Foundation
— National Council of
[0.25]
—
—
—
—
Negro Women
— Wash. Opera Edu.
[0.25]
—
—
—
—
— Wash. Lab School
[0.25]
—
—
—
—
— Cong. Glaucoma Caucus
[0.25]
—
—
—
—
— Perry School Community
[0.25]
—
—
—
—
Service Center
— Safe Kids Coalition
[0.27]
—
—
—
—
— International Youth
[0.3]
—
—
—
—
Service and Dev. Corps.
— Public Access Channel
[0.3]
—
—
—
—
Future Producers Program
— Criminal Justice
[0.3]
—
—
—
—
Coordinating Council
— Tech. Innovation and
[0.3]
—
—
—
—
Learning Lab
— Close Up Foundation
[0.4]
—
—
—
—
— Values First training
[0.25]
—
—
—
—
— Excel Institute & National
[0.35]
—
—
—
—
Center for Manufacturing
Sciences Job Training
— Excel Institute Adult
[0.4]
—
—
—
—
Education Program

---

CRS-8
FY2004
House
Senate
Enacted
City’s
Approp.
Approp.
Programs
FY2003
Admin.
Budget
Comm.
Comm.
Conf.
— Excel Institute for
[1.25]
—
—
—
—
operational expenses
— City Museum
[0.5]
—
—
—
—
— Teach for America
[0.4]
—
—
—
—
— National Negro College
[0.5]
—
—
—
—
Fund
— Amer. Cities Foundation
[0.5]
—
—
—
—
education clearinghouse
— Emergency Management,
[0.5]
—
—
—
—
Inc. evacuation planning
— G. Washington Univ. Risk
[0.5]
—
—
—
—
Management and Univ of
New Orleans Hazards
Assessment
— Capitol City Career
[0.5]
—
—
—
—
Development and Job
Training
— Washington Center for
[0.5]
—
—
—
—
Best Practice College
Awareness Program
— Caribbean Amer. Mission
[0.5]
—
—
—
—
for Edu. Research
— Comm. Youth Connection
[0.5]
—
—
—
—
— Wash. CoG Housing
[0.5]
—
—
—
—
Trust Fund
— Eisenhower Foundation
[0.5]
—
—
—
—
Carver Terrace Initiative
— Good Samaritan Found.
[0.5]
—
—
—
—
— Reach for Tomorrow
[0.5]
—
—
—
—
— Metro Police Secures
[0.5]
—
—
—
—
Program
— Institute for Responsible
[0.5]
—
—
—
—
Fatherhood
— Second Chance Employ.
[0.6]
—
—
—
—
Service for Women
— Real World Schools
[1.0]
—
—
—
—
— Whitman Walker Clinic
[1.0]
—
—
—
—
— Washington CoG
[1.0]
—
—
—
—
Regional Incident Comm. and
Coordination
— Council of Court
[1.0]
—
—
—
—
Excellence

---

CRS-9
FY2004
House
Senate
Enacted
City’s
Approp.
Approp.
Programs
FY2003
Admin.
Budget
Comm.
Comm.
Conf.
— Green Door (assist
[1.0]
—
—
—
—
residents w/ mental illness)
— Active Cap River
[1.0]
—
—
—
—
Cleanup
— Covenant House
[1.22]
—
—
—
—
— Seed Foundation Charter
[2.0]
—
—
—
—
School
— National Institute for
[2.0]
—
—
—
—
Manufacturing Sciences for
infrastructure vulnerability
assessment
— St. Coletta expansion
[2.0]
—
—
—
2.0i
— Nat. Hist. Trust Lincoln
[2.35]
—
—
—
—
Cottage Restoration
— Canal Park Dev. Assoc.
[2.5]
—
—
—
—
— Children’s National
[5.0]
—
—
—
—
Medical Center
Potomac Southwest Waterfront
2.3
—
—
—
—
Lorton Asbestos Remediation
0.993
—
—
—
—
Capital Improvements for Fire
1.9
—
—
—
—
and Emer. Med. Services Dept.
Total federal payments
508.7
420.6
915.9
466.0
545.0
Source: H.Rept. 108-214.
Note: The amount included in [ ] is a component part of the preceding unbracketed amount.
a Certified as a federal agency on August 14, 2000.
b District must provide a 100% match of federal funds.
c City requested $46 million as part of a special federal payment for Emergency Preparedness. Senate bill
provides for a stand-alone appropriation for FY2004.
d Funds administered under the CFO account.
e Funded under separate account for public charter schools.
f Administration has requested funding for a similar program within the Labor, Health and Human
Services, Education and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for FY2004.
g Subject to passage of authorizing legislation.
h Notes the funds are to be used for education, security, economic development and health initiatives, but
does not specify recipients of funds in the bill or its accompanying report.
i Funded in FY2003 under CFO account. FY2004 funded under a separate account.

---

CRS-10
Table 3. District of Columbia General Funds for FY2004
(in millions of dollars)
Enacted
FY2004
Programs
FY2003
District
House
Senate
Conf.
Division of Expenses: District of Columbia Funds
GENERAL FUND
Governmental
303.673
284.415
284.415
284.415
Direction and Support
Economic
Development and
244.358
276.647
276.647
276.647
Regulation
Public Safety and
622.531
745.958
745.958
745.958
Justice
Public Education
1,206.169
1,157.841
1,157.841
1,157.841
System
Human Support
2,451.818
2,360.067
2,360.067
2,360.067
Services
Public Works
320.357
327.046
327.046
327.046
Workforce Investments
48.186
22.308
22.308
22.308
Cash Reserve Fund
0.000
50.000
50.000
50.000
Emer. and Contingency
70.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Reserve Fund
Emergency Planning
14.903
0.000
0.000
0.000
and Security Costs
Repayment of Loans
260.951
311.504
311.504
311.504
and Interest
Repayment Gen. Fund
39.300
0.000
0.000
0.000
Recovery Debt
Pay Interest on Short
1.000
3.000
3.000
3.000
Term Borrowing
Wilson Building
4.194
3.704
3.704
3.704
One Judiciary Square
Certificate of
7.950
4.911
4.911
4.911
Participation
Nondepartmental
5.799
19.639
19.639
19.639
Agency
Pay-As-You-Go Capital
0.000
11.267
11.267
11.267
Settlements and
22.822
22.522
22.522
22.522
Judgements
Tax Increment
0.000
1.940
1.940
1.940
Financing Program
Medicaid Disallowance
0.000
57.000
57.000
57.000
Emergency Planning
15.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
and Security
Scholarship Program
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
General Fund Total
5,624.108
5,659.769
5,659.769
5,659.769
Operating Expenses

---

CRS-11
Enacted
FY2004
Programs
FY2003
District
House
Senate
Conf.
ENTERPRISE FUNDS
Water and Sewer Auth.
253.743
259.059
259.059
259.059
Washington Aqueduct
57.847
55.553
55.553
55.553
Stormwater Permit
3.100
3.501
3.501
3.501
Compliance
Lottery and Charitable
232.881
242.755
242.755
242.755
Games
Sports and Enter.
20.477
13.979
13.979
13.979
Commission
DC Retirement Board
13.388
13.895
13.895
13.895
Convention Center
78.700
69.742
69.742
69.742
Enterprise Fund
National Capital
Revitalization
6.745
7.849
7.849
7.849
Corporation
Total Enterprise
666.914
666.369
666.369
666.369
Funds
Total Operating
6,291.022
6,326.138
6,326.138
6,326.138
Expenses
CAPITAL OUTLAY
General Fund
670.520
904.913
904.913
904.913
Water and Sewer Fund
342.458
199.807
199.807
199.807
Total Capital Outlays
1,012.978
1,104.720
1,104.720
1,104.720
Total District of
7,304.000
7,430.858
7,430.858
7,430.858
Columbia Funds
Source: H.Rept. 108-214.
Key Policy Issues
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 FY2004. The controversy surrounding
funding a needle exchange program touches on issues of home rule, public health
policy, and government sanctioning and facilitating the use of illegal drugs.
Proponents of a needle exchange program contend that such programs reduce the
spread of HIV among illegal drug users by reducing the incidence of shared needles.
Opponents of these efforts contend that such programs amount to the government
sanctioning illegal drugs by supplying drug-addicted persons with the tools to use
them. In addition, they contend that public health concerns raised about the spread
of AIDS and HIV through shared contaminated needles should be addressed through
drug treatment and rehabilitation programs. Another view in the debate focuses on
the issue of home rule and the city’s ability to use local funds to institute such
programs free from congressional actions.

---

CRS-12
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 it 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 it prohibits the use of both District and federal funds for such activities.
At present, one entity, Prevention Works, a private nonprofit AIDS awareness and
education program, operates a privately funded needle exchange program. The
FY2002 District of Columbia Appropriations Act requires such entities to track and
account for the use of public and private funds.
District officials were seeking to lift the prohibition on the use of District funds
for needle exchange programs. H.R. 2765, however, would continue to prohibit the
use of both District and federal funds for needle exchange programs. The Act would
allow the use of private funds for needle exchange programs and would require
private and public entities that receive federal or District funds in support of other
activities or programs to account for the needle exchange funds separately. S. 1583
would prohibit only the use of federal funds for a needle exchange program and
would allow the use of District funds.
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
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.2 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
2 Turner v. District of Columbia Board of Elections and Ethics. No. 98-2634 Civ. (D.D.C.
Sept. 17, 1999; memorandum opinion).

---

CRS-13
certified by the Board of Elections and Ethics.
Language prohibiting the
implementation of the initiative was included in P.L. 106-113, the District of
Columbia Appropriations Act for FY2000. Opponents of the provision contend that
such congressional actions undercut the concept of home rule.
The District of Columbia Appropriations Act for FY2002, P.L. 107-96, includes
a provision that continues to prohibit the District government from implementing the
initiative. Congress’s power to block the implementation of the initiative was again
challenged in the courts. On December 18, 2001, two groups, the Marijuana Policy
Project and Medical Marijuana Initiative Committee, filed suit in U.S. District Court,
seeking injunctive relief in an effort to put 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
appropriations act since 1998 prohibits it from using public funds to do preliminary
work that would put the initiative on the ballot.
On March 28, 2002, a U.S. district court judge ruled that the congressional ban
on the use of public funds to put such a ballot initiative before the voters was
unconstitutional.3 The judge stated that the effect of the amendment was to restrict
the plaintiff’s First Amendment rights to engage in political speech. The decision
was appealed by the Justice Department and on September 19, 2002, the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed the ruling of the lower court
without comment. The appeals court issued its ruling on September 19, 2002, which
was the deadline for printing ballots of the November 2002 general election.
H.R. 2765 and S. 1583 include a provision that continues the prohibition against
the implementation of the medical marijuana ballot initiative.
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
3 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-14
mother’s life would be endangered or the pregnancy resulted from rape and incest.
The District was free to use District funds for abortion services.
When Congress passed the District of Columbia Appropriations Act for FY1989,
P.L. 100-462, it restricted the use of District and federal funds for abortion services
to cases where the mother’s life would be endangered if the pregnancy were taken to
term. The inclusion of District funds, and the elimination of rape or incest as
qualifying conditions for public funding of abortion services, was endorsed by
President Reagan, who threatened to veto the District’s appropriations act if the
abortion provision was not modified.4 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.5
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.
H.R. 2765 and S. 1583 would continue to restrict the use of District and federal
funds for abortion services except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the
mother is endangered. This is consistent with provisions included in the House and
Senate versions of the District of Columbia Appropriations Act for FY2003, P.L.
108-7.
4 “District Policies Hit Hard in Spending Bill,” Congressional Quarterly Almanac, vol.
XLIV (Washington: Congressional Quarterly, Inc., 1988), p. 713.
5
“D.C. Bill Vetoed Twice Over Abortion Funding,” Congressional Quarterly Almanac,
vol. XLV (Washington: Congressional Quarterly, Inc., 1989), p. 757.

---

CRS-15
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.6 The
provision permits unmarried heterosexual and homosexual couples to register as
domestic partners. Under the Health Care Benefits Expansion Act, which was
approved by the city’s elected leadership in 1992, an unmarried person who registers
as a domestic partner of a District employee hired after 1987 may be added to the
District employee’s health care policy for an additional charge. The Act had not been
implemented until 2002 because of a congressional prohibition first included in the
general provisions of District of Columbia Appropriations Act for FY1994.
The city’s Health Care Benefits Expansion Act allows two cohabiting,
unmarried, and unrelated individuals to register as domestic partners with the District
for the purpose of securing certain health and family related benefits, including
hospital visiting rights. Under the law, District government employees enrolled in
the District of Columbia Employees Health Benefits Program are allowed to purchase
family health insurance coverage that would cover the employee’s family members,
including domestic partners. In addition, a District employee registered as a domestic
partner may assume the additional cost of the family health insurance coverage for
family members, which would include the employee’s domestic partner.
Opponents of the act maintain that it devalues the institution of marriage, and
that the act grants unmarried gay and heterosexual couples the same standing as
married couples. Congressional proponents of lifting the ban on the use of District
funds argue that the implementation of the act is a question of home rule and local
autonomy. Supporters of the amendment noted that at least nine states, 136 local
governments, and more than 4,000 companies offer benefits to domestic partners.7
6 On September 20, 2001, the House Appropriations Committee approved, by a vote of 28
to 21, an amendment introduced by Reps. Kolbe and Moran that removed the congressional
prohibition on the use of District funds for the implementation of the city’s Health Care
Benefits Expansion Act. The Act, which was approved by the city’s elected leadership in
1992, had not been implemented because of a congressional prohibition first included in the
general provisions of District of Columbia Appropriations Act for FY1994. On September
25, 2001, during House consideration of H.R. 2944, the House version of the District of
Columbia Appropriations Act for FY2002, Rep. 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.
7 Human Rights Campaign Foundation, “Frequently Asked Questions on Domestic Partners
Benefits: Employers that Offer Domestic Partners Benefits,” at [http://www.hrc.org/
worknet/dp/index.asp], visited September 25, 2002.

---

CRS-16
H.R. 2765 and S. 1583, consistent with the provision first included in the
District’s FY2002 Appropriations Act, include a general provision that allows the use
of District funds to administer the program during FY2004.
Elementary and Secondary Education
During the FY2004 appropriations process, key policy issues have emerged in
the areas of special education, public charter schools, and school choice.
Special Education. The District’s special education program has long been
characterized as ineffective and inefficient.8 The system has been plagued by
problems in transporting students to special education facilities and in the timely
evaluation of students who may have special needs. Delays in the period between a
student’s referral and assessment increase the number of students placed in private
educational institutions, which adds to the 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 with special education needs, as defined by the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)9 or the Rehabilitation Education
Act,10 from 50 days to 120 days.11 P.L. 108-7, the Consolidated Appropriations Act
for FY2003, deleted the 120-day special education evaluation and placement time
period provision included in previous appropriations acts.
In addition, the FY1999 Appropriations Act for the District of Columbia limited
the amount of compensation payable to attorneys representing disabled students who
prevailed in an action brought against the District of Columbia Public Schools
(DCPS) under the IDEA. Subsequent appropriations acts for FY2000 and FY2001
also limited the amount of funds payable to attorneys successfully representing
students seeking special education services. The FY1999 act limited attorneys’ fees
to an hourly rate of $50 and a case ceiling of $1,300; the FY2000 limit was $60 per
hour and a case ceiling of $1,560; and the FY2001 rate was $125 per hour with a case
ceiling of $2,500.
8 Deficiencies in the DCPS special education programs and activities have been documented
in the following sources: a five-part series of Washington Post articles published from
February 16 to February 20, 1997; a September 27, 2000, report to U.S. District Court Judge
Friedman by a court-appointed special master for special education on issues in special
education; and a civil action (Blackman v. District of Columbia, Civil Action No. 97-1629)
that resulted in the appointment of a special master for special education. In April 1999 the
city council created “a special committee to investigate systematic flaws in the delivery of
special education services, spending patterns, allegations of mismanagement, structural
inadequacies, and the failure to timely assess and place students in the District of Columbia
Special Education Program” (PR 13-113).
9 20 U.S.C. 1401(a)(1)
10 29 U.S.C. 706(8).
11 P.L. 105-277, Section 141.

---

CRS-17
The District’s FY2002 Appropriations Act lifted the ceiling, in part, in response
to the argument that the ceiling placed a hardship on households with limited
financial resources. District officials countered that the payment of attorney’s fees
diverted significant funds from the provision of special education services, but were
unable to quantify the amount. As a consequence, the FY2002 Appropriations
directed the superintendent of the DCPS to provide an itemized list of attorney’s fees
awarded plaintiffs who had prevailed in cases brought under the IDEA.12 The act
also directed the General Accounting Office to report to the House and Senate
Appropriations Committees on attorneys’ fees awarded to prevailing plaintiffs
seeking remedy under the IDEA in excess of the payment ceiling established in the
Appropriations Acts for FY1999, FY2000, and FY2001.13
Copies of the GAO
reports cited above may be obtained at the GAO website.14
The District of Columbia Appropriations Act for FY2003, P.L. 108-7, limits to
$4,000 the amount of appropriated funds that may be used to pay attorney’s fees for
actions brought against the DCPS under the IDEA. The $4,000 limit includes fees
for attorneys representing students and those defending the DCPS. Section 145 of
the act requires attorneys in special education cases brought under the IDEA to
disclose all financial, corporate, legal, or other interest or relationships with any
special education diagnostic services or schools to which the attorney may have
referred any client.
H.R. 2765 and S. 1583 would continue to limit attorney’s fees in IDEA cases to
$4,000, and would continue to require attorneys in such cases to disclose any interest
in or relationship with any special education diagnostic services or schools to which
the attorney may have referred any client.
Charter Schools.
Charter schools are public schools that operate
independently of traditional local public school systems under a charter granted by
a public entity. The 104th Congress authorized the establishment of charter schools
in the District of Columbia, under the District of Columbia School Reform Act of
1995 (P.L. 104-134). Under the District of Columbia’s charter school law, charters
may be granted by either the District of Columbia Board of Education or the District
of Columbia Public Charter School Board.
In accordance with requirements
implemented under P.L. 104-134, both DCPS schools and public charter schools are
funded on a per-pupil basis according to a uniform per student funding formula
(UPSFF). During the 2003-2004 school year, 41 public charter schools are operating
in the District of Columbia, enrolling over 11,750 students.15
12 P.L. 107-96, Section 140(b).
13 P.L. 107-96, Section 141.
14 U.S. General Accounting Office, DCPS: Limitation of Attorneys’ Fees for Fiscal Years
1999 through 2001, GAO Report 03-224R (Washington: Nov. 6, 2002); and U.S. General
Accounting Office, DCPS: Attorneys Fees for Access to Special Education Opportunities,
GAO Report 02-559R (Washington: May 22, 2002).
15
Government of the District of Columbia.
Education Center.
Available at:
[http://dcschoolsearch.dc.gov/education/schools/school_listing.asp?canned=1].

---

CRS-18
The District of Columbia Appropriations Act for FY2003, P.L. 108-7, included
several provisions in support of the public charter school movement in the District
of Columbia. The Act appropriated $16.9 million for charter school activities,
including $8 million for a credit enhancement revolving fund, and $5 million for a
facilities improvement fund. In addition, the act established the Office of Public
Charter School Financing and Support and amended the District of Columbia School
Reform Act of 1995 to establish the Charter School Fund. The act also included a
provision directing the General Accounting Office to provide a detailed analysis of
District and nationwide efforts to establish adequate charter schools facilities.16
These provisions were intended to address major issues confronting charter schools
in the city — finding, financing, and renovating adequate facilities.
For FY2004, District officials have requested $6 million in federal special
payments for charter schools. H.R. 2765, as reported by the House Committee on
Appropriations, does not include any additional funding for District of Columbia
charter schools for FY2004. S. 1583, as reported by the Senate Committee on
Appropriations, would provide $13 million for public charter schools in the District
of Columbia as part of a $40 million federal payment for school improvement.17 The
charter school component includes $8 million for the Direct Loans Fund for Charter
School Improvement established under P.L. 108-7 and $5 million for a new “City
Build” charter school initiative. The City Build charter school initiative would help
create five new charter schools in city neighborhoods that are in need of
development.
School Voucher Program. In its FY2004 budget submission, the Bush
Administration requested $75 million for a Choice Incentive Fund that would provide
competitive awards to states, local educational agencies (LEAs), and community
based organizations (CBOs) that expanded opportunities for parents of children who
attend low-performing schools to attend higher-performing public schools (including
charter schools) and private schools. Under the administration’s proposal, a portion
would be reserved for school choice programs in the District of Columbia.
On May 1, 2003, Mayor Anthony Williams endorsed a Bush Administration
school choice initiative intended to provide scholarships to assist eligible District
schoolchildren to attend private elementary and secondary schools. The mayor’s
endorsement followed that of Peggy Cafritz, President of the District of Columbia
Board of Education, who announced her support for vouchers in a Washington Post
editorial on March 29, 2003.18 The mayor and board of education president endorsed
16 This report was recently released. See United States General Accounting Office. Charter
Schools: New Charter Schools across the Country and in the District of Columbia Face
Similar Start-Up Challenges. GAO-03-899. September 2003.
17 S.Rept. 108-142. District of Columbia Appropriations Bill, 2004. Under the federal
payment for school improvement in the District of Columbia, $40 million would be
appropriated as follows: $13 million for a scholarship program for low-income children in
under-performing schools; $13 million for charter schools; $13 million for school
improvement in DCPS; and $1 million for administrative expenses.
18
Peggy Cooper Cafritz, “Making the Most of Vouchers,” Washington Post, March. 29,
(continued...)

---

CRS-19
the concept of private school vouchers as a means of improving educational options
for District public-school children and transforming the city’s faltering public
schools. Local supporters of a voucher program insist that it must be federally
funded and must not reduce funding for the city’s traditional public schools and
public charter schools.
The mayor’s support of a voucher program has been criticized by the city’s
Delegate to Congress, Eleanor Holmes Norton, who characterized the Bush
Administration proposal as an affront to home rule.19 Opponents of the voucher
program contend that it will drain needed funds from public education and will be of
minimal benefit to the majority of District school children. While the U.S. Supreme
Court has ruled in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris that the Constitution permits public
funding of school vouchers for attendance at religiously affiliated schools in
instances where parents have the opportunity of selecting from a range of options that
includes public and private secular schools, many still object to allowing public funds
to be used to pay tuition for attendance at religiously affiliated schools.20
On July 10, 2003, the House Committee on Government Reform passed H.R.
2556, the DC Parental Choice Incentive Act of 2003, by a vote of 22 to 21. The bill
would authorize the establishment of a federal competitive grant program in which
the Secretary of Education would award grants for the operation of a scholarship
program to enable children from low-income families in the District of Columbia to
attend private elementary or secondary schools located in the District of Columbia.
Under the program, students who are residents of the District of Columbia and who
are from families with incomes not exceeding 185 percent of the poverty line could
apply for scholarships valued at up to $7,500 per academic year. The program would
be authorized at $15 million for FY2004 and such sums as necessary through
FY2008.21
On July 17, 2003, House Committee on Appropriations reported H.R. 2765,
which would authorize a special federal payment of $10 million for a school choice
program in the District of Columbia, subject to the program’s authorization.22 On
September 5, 2003, during floor debate on H.R. 2765, the House considered two
school voucher-related amendments to the bill. Delegate Norton introduced H.Amdt.
367, which would have deleted from the bill the proposed $10 million to fund the
school choice program. The amendment failed to pass by a vote of 203 to 203 (Roll
18 (...continued)
2003, p. 17.
19 Craig Timberg and Justin Blum, “Mayor Endorses Vouchers in D.C.; Norton Criticizes
Statement as ‘Selling Out’ Home Rule,” Washington Post, May 2, 2003, p. A1.
20 For a discussion of church-state constitutional issues surrounding vouchers, see CRS
Report RL30165, Education Vouchers: Constitutional Issues and Cases, by David M.
Ackerman.
21 For a detailed analysis of policy issues surrounding the District school voucher proposal,
see CRS Report RL32019, The DC Parental Choice Incentive Act of 2003: Policy Issues
and Analysis, by David P. Smole.
22 H.Rept. 108-214.

---

CRS-20
Call Vote No. 479). The House approved by a vote of 209 to 206 (Roll Call Vote
No. 490) an amendment offered by Representative Tom Davis. H.Amdt. 490 would
authorize a school voucher program in the District of Columbia for students whose
family income does not exceed 185% of the federal poverty level. Students will be
eligible for up to $7,500 in funds to attend a private elementary or high school in the
District.
On September 4, 2003, the Senate Committee on Appropriations reported S.
1583, which would authorize $13 million for a school voucher program as part of a
$40 million federal payment for school improvement in the District of Columbia.23
Title II of S. 1583 would authorize the DC Student Opportunity Scholarship Act of
2003 for five years. The bill would provide scholarship funds to low-income parents
— parents whose incomes do not exceed 185% of the federal poverty level — of
children attending underperforming public schools. Grant funds would be awarded
on a competitive basis to eligible entities, including the District of Columbia
government, a nonprofit organization, or a consortium of nonprofit organizations, to
administer the program. The act would limit annual scholarship amounts to $7,500
per pupil.
It would prohibit an eligible entity or participating school from
discriminating against program participants or applicants on the basis of race, color,
national origin, religion, or sex, but it would allow students to attend religious-based
and single-sex private schools.
23 S.Rept. 108-142.

---