Order Code RL32994
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
District of Columbia: FY2006 Appropriations
Updated October 14, 2005
Eugene Boyd, Coordinator
Analyst in American National Government
Government and Finance Division
Congressional Research Service { The Library of Congress

---

The annual consideration of appropriations bills (regular, continuing, and supplemental) by
Congress is part of a complex set of budget processes that also encompasses the
consideration of budget resolutions, revenue and debt-limit legislation, other spending
measures, and reconciliation bills. In addition, the operation of programs and the spending
of appropriated funds are subject to constraints established in authorizing statutes.
Congressional action on the budget for a fiscal year usually begins following the submission
of the President’s budget at the beginning of the session. Congressional practices governing
the consideration of appropriations and other budgetary measures are rooted in the
Constitution, the standing rules of the House and Senate, and statutes, such as the
Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974.
This report is a guide to the regular appropriations bills that Congress considers each year.
It is designed to supplement the information provided by the Senate Appropriations
Subcommittee on the District of Columbia and the House Appropriations Subcommittee on
Transportation, the Treasury, Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, the District
of Columbia, the Executive Office of the President, and Independent Agencies. It
summarizes the status of the bill, its scope, major issues, funding levels, and related
congressional activity, and is updated as events warrant. The report lists the key CRS staff
relevant to the issues covered and related CRS products.
NOTE: A Web version of this document with active links is
available to congressional staff at
[http://beta.crs.gov/cli/level_2.aspx?PRDS_CLI_ITEM_ID=73].

---

District of Columbia: FY2006 Appropriations
Summary
On February 8, 2005, the Bush Administration released its FY2006 budget
request. The Administration’s proposed budget includes $573.4 million in federal
payments to the District of Columbia. Four payments (for court operations, defender
services, offender supervision, and criminal justice coordination) represent $471.4
million, or 82%, of the President’s proposed $573.4 million in total federal payments
to the District of Columbia.
On June 2, 2005, the District’s city council approved the city’s $8.8 billion
operating budget for FY2006. The District’s budget, which must be approved by
Congress, also includes $2.7 billion in capital outlays, including $535 million to
finance a new baseball stadium. In addition, the District’s budget includes a request
for $635 million in special federal payments.
H.R. 3058 — a bill providing FY2006 appropriations for the Departments of
Transportation, Treasury, and Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, the
District of Columbia, and Independent Agencies (TTHUD), was approved by the
House on June 30, 2005. It would provide $603 million in special federal payments
to the District, including $75 million in special federal payments in support of
elementary, secondary, and post-secondary education initiatives.
In addition to recommending $603 million in special federal payments to the
District of Columbia, H.R. 3058 contains a number of general provisions, including
several so-called “social riders.” Consistent with provisions included in previous
appropriations acts, the bill would prohibit the use of federal and District funds to
finance or administer a needle exchange program intended to reduce the spread of
AIDS and HIV; or for abortion services except in an instance of rape or incest, or
when the life of the mother is threatened. The bill also would prohibit the city from
decriminalizing the use of marijuana for medical purposes; it would prohibit the
District from enforcing a section of its gun control laws that requires registered
owners of handguns to keep such weapons unloaded, disassembled, or trigger-locked
in their homes; and it would limit the city’s ability to use District funds to lobby for
congressional voting representation.
On July 21, 2005, the Senate Appropriations Committee reported S. 1446, the
District of Columbia Appropriations Act for FY2006. The committee recommended
$593 million in special federal payments, including funding of three new initiatives
not included in the House version of H.R. 3058: $3 million for marriage development
accounts for low income persons; $2 million for a Latino youth education and health
initiative; and $3 million for a housing initiative for recently released ex-offenders.
The bill would also transfer 15 acres of federal land at Robert F. Kennedy Stadium
to the District. In addition, like its House counterpart, the bill would restrict the use
of District and federal funds for abortion services and prohibit the implementation
of the city’s medical marijuana initiative. It would allow the use of local, but not
federal, funds for a needle exchange program and lobbying for voting representation
in Congress. This report will be updated as events warrant.

---

Contents
Most Recent Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Budget Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
FY2006: The President’s Budget Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
FY2006: District’s Budget Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
FY2006: Section 302(b) Suballocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Congressional Action on the Budget . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
House Bill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
House Bill General Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Senate Bill . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Senate Bill General Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Key Policy Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Needle Exchange . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Medical Marijuana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Abortion Provision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Health Care Benefits Expansion Act (Domestic Partners Program) . . . . . . 15
District of Columbia Handgun Ban . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Federal Payment for School Improvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Marriage Development Accounts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
List of Tables
Table 1. Status of District of Columbia Appropriations, FY2006 . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Table 2. District of Columbia Special Federal Payments Funds:
FY2006 Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Table 3. District of Columbia General Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

---

District of Columbia: FY2006 Appropriations
Most Recent Developments
On July 21, 2005, the Senate Appropriations Committee reported S. 1446, the
District of Columbia Appropriations Act for FY2006. The bill includes $593 million
in special federal payments, including funding for three new initiatives:$3 million for
marriage development accounts for low income persons; $2 million for a Latino
youth education and health initiative; and $3 million for a housing initiative for
recently released ex-offenders. The bill would also transfer 15 acres of federal land
at Robert F. Kennedy Stadium to the District. On June 30, 2005, the House approved
its version of the Departments of Transportation, Treasury, and Housing and Urban
Development, the Judiciary, the District of Columbia, and Independent Agencies
Appropriations Act for FY2006 (TTHUD), H.R. 3058. The bill would appropriate
$603 million in special federal payments to the District of Columbia. As approved
by the House, the bill includes $41.6 million in special federal payments in support
of elementary and secondary school education, including $13.525 million for public
school improvements, $13.525 million for public charter schools, and $14.566
million for vouchers to fund scholarship assistance to private and religious
elementary and secondary schools. The Senate bill, S. 1446, would provide $40
million for public schools, charter schools, and opportunity scholarships. Both the
House and the Senate bill would increase the federal contribution to the city’s college
tuition assistance program to $33.2 million from the $25.4 million approved for
FY2005.
Table 1. Status of District of Columbia Appropriations, FY2006
Conf. Report
Committee Markup
House
House
Senate
Senate
Conf.
Approved
Public
Report
Passage
Report
Passage
Report
Law
House
Senate
House
Senate
H.R. 3058
S. 1446
H.Rept.
6/30/05
S.Rept.
6/21/05
7/21/05
109-153
(405-18)
109-106
Budget Request
FY2006: The President’s Budget Request
On February 8, 2005, the Bush Administration released its FY2006 budget
request. The Administration’s proposed budget includes $573.397 million in federal

---

CRS-2
payments to the District of Columbia. A major portion of the President’s proposed
federal payment is for the District’s courts and criminal justice system.1 This
includes $221.693 million in support of court operations, $45 million for Defender
Services, and $203.388 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. The Administration also requested $1.3 million for the
Criminal Justice Coordinating Council. These four functions (court operations,
defender-related services, offender supervision, and criminal justice coordination)
represent $471.381, or 82%, of the President’s proposed $573.397 million in federal
payments to the District of Columbia. The President’s budget request also includes
$74.8 million in support of elementary and secondary education, and college tuition
assistance (see Table 2). This represents 13% of the Administration’s proposed
federal payments to the District. Additionally, the Administration requested $22.2
million for security planning and bioterrorism preparedness, which represents
approximately 5% of its total special federal payments budget request (see Table 2).
FY2006: District’s Budget Request
On June 2, 2005, the District’s city council unanimously approved the city’s
$8.8 billion operating budget for FY2006, and forwarded it to the President for
review, approval, and transmittal to Congress.2 The proposed budget includes a
request for $635.197 million in special federal payments. The proposed budget
would increase local funding for public education by $206 million (see Table 3),
while seeking $41.616 million in special federal payments for public schools
($13.525 million), charter schools ($13.525 million), and school vouchers ($14.566
million) (see Table 2). The proposed budget would also increase local funding for
economic development and regulation by $111.1 million and human support services
by $286.8 million (see Table 3).
The District has also requested $33.2 million in a special federal payment for
the District’s college tuition assistance program, a proposed increase of $7.8 million
above the federal government’s FY2005 commitment.3 In addition, the District
requested $2 million for a downtown transit circulator system, and $40 million in
special federal payments to support security and emergency preparedness activities,
including $25 million for bioterrorism preparedness, and $15 million for emergency
planning and security.
1 U.S. Office of the President, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 2006
Appendix (Washington: GPO, 2002), pp. 1133-1135 and 1137-1150.
2 Section 446 of the District of Columbia Self-Government and Government Reorganization
Act, P.L.93-198, as amended in 1989, requires a budget approved by the mayor and city
council of the District of Columbia to be to submitted to the President for transmittal to
Congress.
3 See CRS Report RS20646, District of Columbia Tuition Assistance Program, by Bonnie
Mangan.

---

CRS-3
FY2006: Section 302(b) Suballocation
Section 302(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 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 requires appropriations committees in the House
and Senate to subdivide their Section 302(a) allocation of budget authority and
outlays among the 10 appropriations subcommittees in the House and the 12
appropriations subcommittees in the Senate. On May 18, 2005, the House
Appropriations Committee approved a Section 302(b) suballocation of $85.922
billion in budget authority for FY2006 to be allocated among the various programs
and activities within the jurisdiction of the TTHUD Subcommittee (H.Rept. 109-85).4
The Senate Appropriations Committee allocated $593 million in budget authority for
the District of Columbia Subcommittee (S.Rept. 109-77). It approved its Section
302(b) suballocations on June 9, 2005.
Congressional Action on the Budget
Congress not only appropriates federal payments to the District to fund certain
activities, but also reviews the District’s entire budget, including the expenditure of
local funds. The House and Senate Appropriations Committees must approve — and
may modify — the District’s budget. House and Senate versions of the District
budget are reconciled in a joint conference committee and must be agreed to by the
House and the Senate. After this final action, the District’s budget is forwarded to
the President, who can sign it into law or veto it.
House Bill. On June 15, 2005, a House appropriations subcommittee
conducted a markup of the TTHUD for FY2006 and forwarded the unnumbered bill
to the full Appropriations Committee for its consideration. On June 21, 2005, the
House Appropriations Committee ordered reported H.R. 3058, which included $603
million in special federal payments for the District of Columbia. As reported by the
committee, the bill recommends $33.2 million for the city’s college tuition assistance
program, a $7.8 million increase above the program’s FY2005 funding level. The
bill also includes $41.616 million in special federal payments in support of continued
efforts to strengthen public schools and expand elementary and secondary education
choices, including funds for public charter schools and private school scholarships.
The bill includes $22.2 million in support of security planning ($15 million) and
bioterrorism preparedness ($7.2 million for bioterrorism and forensic laboratory).
It does not include a District request for $10 million for fire and emergency medical
4 Prior to the 109th Congress, appropriations for the District of Columbia were handled by
a separate subcommittee. At the beginning of the 109th Congress, the House restructured
the appropriation subcommittees, abolishing the District of Columbia Subcommittee on
Appropriations and consolidating its activities into a larger Transportation, Treasury,
Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, the District of Columbia, and Independent
Agencies Appropriations Subcommittee. The Senate undertook a similar restructuring, but
kept the District of Columbia Subcommittee as a stand-alone subcommittee.

---

CRS-4
facilities and special operations, but it does continue congressional support ($5
million) for the construction of a nature trail along the Anacostia River.
House Bill General Provisions. H.R. 3058 includes several provisions that
District officials want to eliminate or modify, including those related to medical
marijuana, abortion, needle exchange, and gun control. During consideration of past
District of Columbia appropriations acts, city officials have asked Congress to
eliminate the provision banning the use of medical marijuana. District officials have
also sought to win congressional approval for the lifting of restrictions on the use of
District funds for abortion services, and the removal of the provision prohibiting the
use of federal or District funds in support of a needle exchange program. However,
as approved by the House, H.R. 3058 would continue to maintain the restrictions and
prohibitions on the use of federal and District funds for medical marijuana, abortion
services, and needle exchange programs. Congress’s authority to ban the use of
medical marijuana, including the implementation of the District’s medical marijuana
initiative, was upheld by a June 6, 2005, Supreme Court decision. By a vote of six
to three, the Supreme Court ruled in Gonzales v. Raich5 that the federal government
could prohibit the possession and cultivation of marijuana in states that have
decriminalized its use as a medical or therapeutic treatment. The bill also includes
a provision prohibiting the use of District funds to enforce existing District gun
control provisions requiring all legally registered handguns kept at home to be
unloaded, disassembled, or trigger-locked.
Senate Bill. On July 19, the Senate Subcommittee on the District of Columbia
completed its markup of the District Appropriations Act for FY2006. On July 21,
2005, the Senate Appropriations Committee reported the District of Columbia
Appropriations Act for FY2006, S. 1446 (S.Rept. 109-106). The bill would
appropriate $593 million in special federal payments for the District and would
approve the District’s $8.8 billion FY2006 operating budget. As reported by the
committee, the bill recommends $33.2 million for the city’s college tuition assistance
program. This is the same amount recommended by the House and represents a $7.8
million increase above the program’s FY2005 funding level. The bill also includes
$40 million in special federal payments in support of continued efforts to strengthen
public schools and expand elementary and secondary education choices, including
funds for public charter schools and private school scholarships. This is $1.6 million
less than recommended by the House. The bill includes $17.2 million in support of
security planning ($12 million) and bioterrorism preparedness ($5.2 million for
bioterrorism and forensic laboratory). This is $5 million less than approved by the
House. It would continue congressional support ($3 million) for the construction of
a nature trail along the Anacostia River, but would appropriate $2 million less than
recommended by the House. These proposed funding reductions, which total $8.6
million, would be used to offset three new initiatives not included in the House bill:
$3 million for marriage development accounts and life skills training for low income
persons; $2 million for a Latino youth education and health initiative; and $3 million
for a housing initiative for recently released ex-offenders.
Senate Bill General Provisions. The Senate bill includes a general
provision not included in the House bill. It would transfer 15 acres of federal land
5 Gonzales v. Raich 545 U.S. (2005).

---

CRS-5
at Robert F. Kennedy Stadium to the District. Unlike the House bill, the Senate
measure would allow local funds to be used for lobbying for District voting
representation in Congress and to fund or operate a needle exchange program.
Consistent with the provisions included in the House bill, the Senate bill would
prohibit the use of District and federal funds to implement the District medical
marijuana initiative, or for abortion services except in cases of rape or incest, or the
mother’s life is endangered.
Table 2. District of Columbia Special Federal Payments Funds:
FY2006 Appropriations
(in millions of dollars)
FY2006
Enacted
City’s
Programs
FY2005
Admin.
Budget
House Senate
Conf.
Resident Tuition Program
25.395
33.200
33.200
33.200
33.200
Emergency Planning and Security
14.880
15.000
15.000
15.000
12.000
Bioterrorism Preparedness and Forensic
7.936
7.200
25.000
7.200
5.200
Laboratory
Court Operations
189.274
221.693
221.693
221.693
218.912
— Court of Appeals
[8.881]
[9.198]
[9.198]
[9.198]
[9.198]
— Superior Court
[84.268]
[87.342]
[87.342]
[87.342]
[87.342]
— Court system
[40.373]
[41.643]
[41.643]
[41.643]
[41.643]
— Capital improvements
[55.752]
[83.510]
[83.510]
[83.510]
[80.729]
Defender Services
38.192
45.000
45.000
45.000
45.000
Court Services and Offender Supervision
178.560
203.388
203.388
203.388
201.388
Agency for the District of Columbiaa
— Community Supervision and Sex
[109.966]
[131.360]
[131.360]
[131.360]
[129.360]
Offender Registry
— Public Defender Service
[29.594]
[29.833]
[29.833]
[29.833]
[29.833]
— Pretrial Service Agency
[38.999]
[42.195]
[42.195]
[42.195]
[42.195]
Criminal Justice Coordinating Council
1.290
1.300
1.300
1.300
1.300
Federal Water and Sewer Authority
4.762
0.000
30.000
10.000
5.000
Payment
Anacostia River Walk and Trail
2.976
5.000
5.000
5.000
3.000
Construction
Fire and Emergency Medical Facilities and
0.000
0.000
10.000
0.000
0.000
Special Operations
Family Literacy Program
0.992
0.000
2.000
0.000
0.000
Transportation 2.480
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
— WMATA Capital Fund
[1.489]
0.000
0.000
0.000
0000
— Downtown Circulator
[0.992]
0.000
2.000
0.000
1.000
Unified Comm. Center for Reg.
5.952
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Emergencies and other activities
Foster Care Improvements
4.960
0.000
0.000
0.000
2.000

---

CRS-6
FY2006
Enacted
City’s
Programs
FY2005
Admin.
Budget
House Senate
Conf.
— Child and Fam. Services
[3.224]
0.000
0.000
0.000
[1.750]
— Early intervention unit
[1.984]
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
— Emer. support fund
[0.744]
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
— Computer upgrades
[0.496]
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
— Mental Health Assess.
[1.240]
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
— COG’s Respite Care and
[0.496]
0.000
0.000
0.000
[0.250]
Recruitment
Public School Library Improvements
5.952
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
School Improvement Initiatives
39.680
41.616
41.616
41.616
40.000
— Public school improvements
[12.896]
[13.525]
[13.525]
[13.525]
[13.000]
— High Performing Schools
[1.984]
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
— Transformation Schools
[1.984]
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
— School Grants and
[8.928]
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Mgmt/Consult. Services
Public Charter School
[12.896]
[13.525]
[13.525]
[13.525]
[13.000]
— City Build Initiative (n/hood-based
[1.984]
0.000
0.000
0.000
[2.000]
charter schools)
— Direct Loan Fund
[2.728]
0.000
0.000
0.000
[4.000]
— Credit Enhancement
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
[2.000]
— Facilities improvements
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
[2.000]
— Admin. Expenses for Outreach and
[0.149]
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
federal entitlement funding
— Admin. Expenses for federal
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
[0.250]
entitlement funding
— Admin. for State Edu. Office
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
[0.250]
— Data collection and analysis
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
[0.300]
— Charter School Incubator
[3.968]
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
— High Performing Schools
[1.984]
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
— Truancy Center
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
[0.300]
— Public Charter School Assoc.
[0.099]
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
— Public Charter School
[2.083]
0.000
0.000
0.000
[0.400]
College Preparatory Program
School Choice Scholarship Program
[12.896]
[14.566]
[14.566]
[14.566]
[14.000]
(vouchers)
— admin. expen./assessment
[0.992]
0.000
[1.000]
[1.000]
[1.000]
Marriage Development and Improvement
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
3.000
— Marriage Dev. Acct./ Cap. Area
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
[1.500]
Asset Building Corp.
— National Center for Fathering
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
[0.850]

---

CRS-7
FY2006
Enacted
City’s
Programs
FY2005
Admin.
Budget
House Senate
Conf.
— East Capitol Center for Change
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
[0.650]
Latino Youth Initiative
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
2.000
— La Raza Mentors Program
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
[1.100]
— MidAtlantic Equity Center Literacy
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
[0.400]
— Latin American Youth Center
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
[0.500]
National Guard Youth Challenge
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.500
Prisoner Reentrant Housing
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
3.000
CFO
32.240
0.000
0.000
20.000
16.500
— audit of funding recipients
[0.992]
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
EDUCATION/CULTURAL/CIVIC RESPONSIBILITY PROGRAMS
— Back to School
[0.992]
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
— Best Friends Foundation Youth
[0.248]
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Development
— Building Bridges Across the River
[0.298]
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
(town hall and arts center)
— Calvary Bilingual Multi-cultural
[0.397]
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Learning Center
— Capital City Careers Fed. Industry
[0.198]
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Academies
— Capital Hill Cluster School
[0.297]
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
(public school consortium)
— Caribbean Amer. Mission for Edu.
[0.347]
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Research (higher education)
— Catalyst (Jefferson High Sch.
[0.198]
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Teacher Feeder program)
— Center for Inspired Teaching
[0.148]
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
— Church of the Epiphany Support
[0.148]
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Our Schools Program
— City Year’s Reading for
[0.992]
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Success/literacy
— Council for Court Excellence
[0.198]
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
— Dance Institute of Wash.
[0.148]
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
— Discovery Creek Children’s
[0.397]
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Museum
— Ed. Adv. Alliance for Youth Civic
[0.248]
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Engagement
— Everybody Wins Mentoring
[0.148]
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Program
— First Book Program (National
[0.198]
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Book Bank)
— Foundation for Support of African
[0.248]
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Americans in Film

---

CRS-8
FY2006
Enacted
City’s
Programs
FY2005
Admin.
Budget
House Senate
Conf.
— Girl Scout Council
[0.694]
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
— Gonzaga College High School
[0.397]
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
capital. development
— Institute for Ed. Equity
[0.248]
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
— Jewish Council for Pub. Affairs
[0.496]
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
— Kingsman Charter School
[0.198]
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
— Love of Children/Thurgood
[0.099]
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Marshall Ctr. Youth Tech. Prog.
— Main Street Arts Initiative
[0.397]
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
DC Commission on the Arts
— National Capital Children’s
[0.496]
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Museum
— Nat. Hist. Trust Lincoln Cottage
[0.992]
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Restoration
— Perry School Comm. Serv.
[0.148]
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
— ReadNet Foundation
[0.397]
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
— See Forever Foundation in support
[0.248]
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
of M. Angelou Charter School after
school program
— Seed Foundation urban boarding
[0.148]
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
school model
— Shakespeare Theater Construction
[0.893]
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
of new facility
— STEED Youth Edu. and Rec.
[0.347]
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
— SURE Foundation (library and
[0.099]
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
community resources)
— Southeast Univ.
[0.446]
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
E-Learning program
— Teach for America, DC
[0.198]
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
— Teacher Advancement Prog.
[0.198]
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
— Values First public school training
[0.248]
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
program
— Washington Area Women’s
[0.992]
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Foundation (philanthropy)
— Wash. Opera Education
[0.397]
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
— World Vision Kids in Need
[0.397]
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Community Storehouse
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, INFRASTRUCTURE, HOUSING
— Active Cap Anacostia River
[0.397]
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Cleanup
— Barrack Row Main Street
[0.496]
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
— Eastern Market Renovation
[0.248]
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000

---

CRS-9
FY2006
Enacted
City’s
Programs
FY2005
Admin.
Budget
House Senate
Conf.
— National Composite Center
[0.992]
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
(bridge replacement)
— One Econ./Digital Inclusion
[0.099]
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
HEALTH AND SOCIAL SERVICES
— All Faith Consortium (substance
[0.198]
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
abuse)
— ARISE life skills for at-risk youth
[0.297]
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
— Capital Area Food Bank
[0.297]
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
— Center for Mental Health
[0.397]
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
— Chesapeake Veteran Hosp.
[0.248]
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
— Children’s Health Fund/van
[0.397]
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
— Children’s National Medical Center
[4.960]
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
capital improvements
— Children’s National Medical Center
[0.397]
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
capital dev. lab.
— DC Poison Control Center
[0.446]
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
— Gospel Rescue Ministries
[0.297]
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
— Latin Amer. Youth Ctr. Home for
[0.099]
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Teenage Girls
— Nat’l Camp. to Prevent Teen
[0.297]
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Pregnancy / Uhlich Children’s
Advantage Network
— St. Coletta construction of facilities
[1.984]
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
for services to mentally retarded and
multi-handicapped
— Teen Connection (teen pregnancy
[0.893]
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
prevention)
— Unity Health Care
[0.645]
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
— Whitman Walker Clinic
[0.595]
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
— Women’s Center Family
[0.843]
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Strengthening Program
PUBLIC SAFETY
— Court Appointed Special Advocate
[0.297]
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Fam. Ct. Services
— National Children’s Alliance
[0.496]
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
— Polaris Project for victims of
[0.119]
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
trafficking (DC Task Force)
— Safe Kids Coalition child safety
[0.297]
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
and seat belt program
— Volunteers for Abused and
[0.099]
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Neglected Children

---

CRS-10
FY2006
Enacted
City’s
Programs
FY2005
Admin.
Budget
House Senate
Conf.
JOB TRAINING
— Amer. Comm. Partnership
[0.099]
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
— National Center for Manufacturing
[0.397]
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Sciences
— Second Chance Employ. Service
[0.446]
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
for Women
— STRIVE/job readiness
[0.099]
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
RECREATION
— Capitol Hill Arts Workshop cap.
[0.148]
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
improvements
— Friends of Ft. Dupont Ice Arena
[0.080]
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Capital Improvements
— Old Naval Hospital Found. Cap.
[0.694]
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Hill Community Center
Total federal payments
555.521
573.397
635.197
603.397
593.000
Note: Due to rounding, numbers in columns may not sum to subtotals and totals.
In addition to appropriating federal payments for specific activities, Congress
must approve the District’s operating and capital budgets. As submitted by the
District and considered by the full House and the Senate Appropriations Committee,
the District’s operating budget totals $8.8 billion for FY2006. This includes $7.4
billion in operating funds and $1.4 billion in enterprise funds. The budget also
provides $2.7 billion in capital outlays, including $535 million to finance the
construction of a new baseball stadium.
Table 3. District of Columbia General Funds
(in millions of dollars)
Enacted
FY2006
Programs
FY2005
District
House Senate Conf.
Division of Expenses: District of Columbia Funds
GENERAL FUND
Governmental Direction and Support
416.069
512.833
512.833
512.833
Economic Dev. and Regulation
334.745
445.831
445.831
445.831
Public Safety and Justice
797.423
837.617
837.617
837.617
Public Education System
1,223.424
1,429.498
1,429.498
1,429.498
Human Support Services
2,533.825
2,820.657
2,820.657
2,820.657
Public Works
331.936
374.476
374.476
374.476
Cash Reserve Fund
50.000
50.000
50.000
50.000
Repayment of Loans and Interest
347.700
370.428
370.428
370.428
Payment of Interest on Short Term
4.000
5.500
5.500
5.500
Borrowing
One Judiciary Square Certificate of
11.252
11.000
11.000
11.000
Participation
Settlements and Judgments
20.270
20.655
20.655
20.655

---

CRS-11
Enacted
FY2006
Programs
FY2005
District
House Senate Conf.
Wilson Building
3.633
3.740
3.740
3.740
Workforce Investments
38.114
61.110
61.110
61.110
Non-Departmental Agency
13.946
36.205
36.205
36.205
Emergency Planning and Security Costs
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Tax Increment Financing
9.710
0.000
0.000
0.000
Equipment Lease
23.109
27.441
27.441
27.441
Emer. and Contingency Reserve Fund
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
Pay-As-You-Go Capital
6.531
252.700
252.700
252.700
Pay-As-You-Go Contingency
43.137
12.462
12.462
12.462
DC Retiree Health Contribution
—
138.000
138.000
138.000
Debt Service Issuance Costs
—
40.000
40.000
40.000
General Fund Total Operating Expenses
6,208.824
7,450.153
7,450.153
7,450.153
ENTERPRISE FUNDS
Water and Sewer Auth.
287.206
295.710
295.710
295.710
Washington Aqueduct
47.972
50.512
50.512
50.512
Stormwater Permit Compliance
3.792
6.673
6.673
6.673
Lottery and Charitable Games
247.000
251.000
251.000
251.000
Sports and Enter. Commission
7.322
339.630
339.630
339.630
DC Retirement Board
15.277
30.078
30.078
30.078
Convention Center Enterprise Fund
77.176
78.900
78.900
78.900
National Capital Revitalization Corporation
7.850
52.731
52.731
52.731
Univ. District of Columbia
85.102
95.971
95.971
95.971
Unemply. Insur. Trust Fund
180.000
180.000
180.000
180.000
Other Post Employee Benefits Trust Fund
953.000
1.100
1.100
1.100
DC Public Library Trust
17.000
17.000
17.000
17.000
Total Enterprise Funds
959.667
1,399.305
1,399.305
1,399.305
Total Operating Expenses
7,168.491
8,849.458
8,849.458
8,849.458
CAPITAL OUTLAYS
General Fund
725.886
2,176.605
2,176.605
2,176.605
— Baseball Stadium Financing
0.000
[534.800]
[534.800]
[534.800]
Water and Sewer Fund
371.040
529.994
529.994
529.994
Total Capital Outlays
1,096.926
2,706.599
2,706.599
2,706.599
Total District of Columbia Funds
8,265.417
11,553.057
11,553.057
11,553.057
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 consider in reviewing the
District’s appropriations for FY2006. 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

---

CRS-12
among illegal drug users by reducing the incidence of shared needles. Opponents of
these efforts contend that such programs amount to the government sanctioning
illegal drugs by supplying drug-addicted persons with the tools to use them. In
addition, they contend that public health concerns raised about the spread of AIDS
and HIV through shared contaminated needles should be addressed through drug
treatment and rehabilitation programs. Another view in the debate focuses on the
issue of home rule and the city’s ability to use local funds to institute such programs
free from congressional actions.
The prohibition on the use of federal and District funds for a needle exchange
program was first approved by Congress as Section 170 of the District of Columbia
Appropriations Act for FY1999, P.L. 105-277. The 1999 act did allow private
funding of needle exchange programs. The District of Columbia Appropriations Act
for FY2001, P.L. 106-522, continued the prohibition on the use of federal and
District funds for a needle exchange program; it also restricted the location of
privately funded needle exchange activities. Section 150 of the District of Columbia
Appropriations Act for FY2001 made it unlawful to distribute any needle or syringe
for the hypodermic injection of any illegal drug in any area in the city that is within
1,000 feet of a public elementary or secondary school, including any public charter
school. The provision was deleted during congressional consideration and passage
of the District of Columbia Appropriations Act of FY2002, P.L. 107-96. The act also
included a provision that allows the use of private funds for a needle exchange
program, but it prohibits the use of both District and federal funds for such activities.
At present, one entity, Prevention Works, a private nonprofit AIDS awareness and
education program, operates a privately funded needle exchange program. The
FY2002 District of Columbia Appropriations Act required such entities to track and
account for the use of public and private funds.
During consideration of the FY2004 District of Columbia Appropriations Act,
District officials unsuccessfully sought to lift the prohibition on the use of District
funds for needle exchange programs. A Senate provision, which was not adopted,
proposed prohibiting only the use of federal funds for a needle exchange program
and allowing the use of District funds. The House and final conference versions of
the FY2004 bill allowed the use of private funds for needle exchange programs and
required private and public entities that receive federal or District funds in support
of other activities or programs to account for the needle exchange funds separately.
The President’s budget proposal for FY2006 included a provision that would
continue to prohibit the use of District and federal funds in support of a needle
exchange program. H.R. 3058, as approved by the House on June 30, 2005, also
includes a provision that would retain the current law prohibiting the use of federal
and District funds for a needle exchange program. The Senate bill, S. 1446, as
reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee on July 21, 2005, includes a
provision that would prohibit the use of federal funds, but allow District funds, to be
used for a needle exchange program.
Medical Marijuana
The city’s medical marijuana initiative is another issue that engenders
controversy. The District of Columbia Appropriations Act for FY1999, P.L. 105-

---

CRS-13
277, included a provision that prohibited the city from counting ballots of a 1998
voter-approved initiative that would have allowed the medical use of marijuana to
assist persons suffering from 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 DC Chapter of the American Civil
Liberties Union (ACLU). On September 17, 1999, District Court Judge Richard
Roberts ruled that Congress, despite its legislative responsibility for the District
under Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution, did not possess the power to stifle or
prevent political speech, which included the ballot initiative.6 This ruling allowed
the city to tally the votes from the November 1998 ballot initiative. To prevent the
implementation of the initiative, Congress had 30 days to pass a resolution of
disapproval from the date the medical marijuana ballot initiative (Initiative 59) was
certified by the Board of Elections and Ethics. Language prohibiting the
implementation of the initiative was included in P.L. 106-113, the District of
Columbia Appropriations Act for FY2000. Opponents of the provision contend that
such congressional actions undercut the concept of home rule.
The District of Columbia Appropriations Act for FY2002, P.L. 107-96, included
a provision that continued to prohibit the District government from implementing the
initiative. Congress’s power to block the implementation of the initiative was again
challenged in the courts. On December 18, 2001, two groups, the Marijuana Policy
Project and Medical Marijuana Initiative Committee, filed suit in U.S. District Court,
seeking injunctive relief in an effort to put another medical marijuana initiative on
the November 2002 ballot. The District’s Board of Elections and Ethics ruled that
a congressional rider that has been included in the general provisions of each District
appropriations act since 1998 prohibits it from using public funds to do preliminary
work that would put the initiative on the ballot.

On March 28, 2002, a U.S. district court judge ruled that the congressional ban
on the use of public funds to put such a ballot initiative before the voters was
unconstitutional.7 The judge stated that the effect of the amendment was to restrict
the plaintiff’s First Amendment right 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 for the November 2002 general election.
More recently, on June 6, 2005, the Supreme Court, in a six-to-three decision,
ruled that Congress possessed the constitutional authority under the commerce clause
to regulate or prohibit the interstate marketing of both legal and illegal drugs. This
6 Turner v. District of Columbia Board of Elections and Ethics, No. 98-2634 Civ. (D.D.C.
Sept. 17, 1999; memorandum opinion).
7 Marijuana Policy Project v. District of Columbia Board of Elections and Ethics, No. 01-
2595 Civ. (D.D.C. Mar. 28, 2002; memorandum opinion, order and judgment). The district
court’s ruling was reversed on appeal by the United States Court of Appeals District of
Columbia Circuit. The court ruled without comment.

---

CRS-14
includes banning the possession of drugs in states8 and the District of Columbia that
have decriminalized or permitted the use of marijuana for medical or therapeutic
purposes.9
The President’s budget proposal for FY2006 and H.R. 3058, as approved by the
House, and S. 1446, as reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee, would
continue to prohibit the implementation of the medical marijuana ballot initiative.
During its consideration of the District budget for FY2006, the city council did not
include language related to the implementation of the 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 was endangered, or the pregnancy was 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 was endangered, or the pregnancy resulted from rape or 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.10 In 1989, President Bush twice vetoed the
District’s FY1990 appropriations act over the abortion issue. He signed P.L. 101-168
8 Eleven states allow medical marijuana usage or limit the penalty for such use: Alaska,
California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont, and
Washington.
9 Gonzalez v. Raich 545 U.S. (2005). For additional information, see CRS Report
RS22167, Gonzales v. Raich: Congress’s Power Under the Commerce Clause to
Regulate Medical Marijuana, by Todd B. Tatelman.
10 “District Policies Hit Hard in Spending Bill,” Congressional Quarterly Almanac, vol.
XLIV (Washington: Congressional Quarterly, Inc., 1988), p. 713.

---

CRS-15
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.11
The District successfully sought the removal of the provision limiting District
funding of abortion services when Congress considered and passed the District of
Columbia Appropriations Act for FY1994, P.L. 103-127. The FY1994 act also
reinstated rape and incest as qualifying circumstances allowing for the public funding
of abortion services. The District’s success was short-lived, however; the District of
Columbia Appropriations Act for FY1996, P.L. 104-134, and subsequent District of
Columbia appropriations acts limited the use of District and federal funds for
abortion services to cases where the mother’s life was endangered or cases where the
pregnancy was the result of rape or incest. H.R. 3058 and S. 1446 would continue to
prohibit the use of both District and federal funds for abortion services, except in
instances of rape or incest, or when pregnancy endangers the life of the mother.
Health Care Benefits Expansion Act
(Domestic Partners Program)
P.L. 107-96 included a provision lifting the congressional prohibition on the use
of District funds to implement its Health Care Benefits Expansion Act.12 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 was not
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, a District government employee enrolled in
11 “D.C. Bill Vetoed Twice Over Abortion Funding,” Congressional Quarterly Almanac,
vol. XLV (Washington: Congressional Quarterly, Inc., 1989), p. 757.
12 On Sept. 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 Sept. 25,
2001, during House consideration of H.R. 2944, the House version of the District of
Columbia Appropriations Act for FY2002, Rep. Weldon offered an amendment (H.Amdt.
310) that would have reaffirmed the ban on the use of District funds to implement the health
care expansion program. The Weldon amendment failed by a vote of 194 to 226. The
Senate bill also included a provision that would have allowed the District to use city, but not
federal, funds to implement the District of Columbia Employees Health Benefits Program.
It had not been implemented because of a congressional prohibition first included in the
general provisions of District of Columbia Appropriations Act for FY1994. The District
began implementation of the health care benefits expansion program on July 8, 2002.

---

CRS-16
the District of Columbia Employees Health Benefits Program is allowed to purchase
family health insurance coverage that would cover the employee’s family members,
including a 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. At least one bill, H.R. 72, would define marriage in the District of
Columbia as a union between a man and a woman. Congressional proponents of
lifting the ban on the use of District funds argue that the implementation of the act
is a question of home rule and local autonomy. Supporters of health care benefits for
domestic partners note that as of 2004, 11 states and the District of Columbia, 185
local governments, and more than 8,000 companies, colleges, and universities offered
health insurance benefits to domestic partners.13
The House and Senate appropriations bills, consistent with the provision first
included in the District’s FY2002 Appropriations Act, include a general provision
that would allow the use of District funds to administer the program.
District of Columbia Handgun Ban14
In the 108th Congress, the House passed a bill (H.R. 3193) introduced by
Representative Mark Souder that would have repealed the District of Columbia
handgun ban and other limitations on firearms possession. The handgun ban was
passed by the District of Columbia Council on June 26, 1976. It required that all
firearms within the District be registered and all owners be licensed, and it
prohibited the registration of handguns after September 24, 1976 (hence, the “DC
handgun ban”). Under the Home Rule Act (P.L. 93-198), however, Congress
reserved for itself the authority to review and disapprove District legislation.
As passed by the House, H.R. 3193 would have amended the DC Code to:
! limit the Council’s authority to regulate firearms;
! remove the term “semiautomatic weapon” that can fire more than 12
rounds without manually reloading from the definition of “machine
gun”;
! amend the registration requirements so that they do not apply to
handguns, but only to sawed-off shotguns, machine guns, and short-
barreled rifles;
! remove restrictions on ammunition possession;
! repeal requirements that DC residents keep firearms in their
possession unloaded and disassembled, or bound by a trigger lock;
! repeal firearm registration requirements generally; and
13 Human Rights Campaign Foundation, “The State of the Workplace for Gay, Lesbian, and
TransgenderAmericans: 2004,” available at [http://www.hrc.org/Content/ContentGroups/
Publications1/State_of_the_Workplace/Workplace0603.pdf], visited June 22, 2005.
14 For further information on gun control issues, see CRS Report RL32842, Gun Legislation
in the 109th Congress, by William J. Krouse.

---

CRS-17
! repeal certain criminal penalties for possessing unregistered firearms
or carrying unlicensed handguns. A similar measure was introduced
in the Senate (S. 1414).
In the 109th Congress, Representative Souder introduced a bill “to restore Second
Amendment rights in the District of Columbia” (H.R. 1288). Senator Kay Bailey
Hutchison introduced a similar measure (S. 1082). During consideration of H.R.
3058, the House passed an amendment offered by Representative Souder to prohibit
the use of any funding provided under that bill to enforce Section 702 of the Firearms
Control Regulations Act of 1975 (Section 7-2507.02, DC Official Code) — the
provision that requires District residents to keep their firearms unloaded and
disassembled, or bound by a trigger lock. Citing ongoing efforts to reduce firearms-
related violence in the city, the District’s Delegate, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Mayor
Anthony Williams, and Police Chief Charles Ramsey oppose this funding limitation
included in H.R. 3058, as well as bills to overturn the District’s handgun control
law.15 S. 1446 does not include a provision that would amend or repeal the District’s
gun control legislation.
Federal Payment for School Improvement
Beginning with the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004 (P.L. 108-199), a
federal payment for school improvement has been included as part of each year’s
District of Columbia appropriations act. As part of this payment, funding has been
provided for three activities: for the District of Columbia Public Schools to improve
public education; for the State Education Office to expand public charter schools; and
for the Secretary of the Department of Education to fund opportunity scholarships
(private school vouchers) under the District of Columbia School Choice Incentive
Act (which was enacted as part of P.L. 108-199). Funding for these activities has
been provided to show a commitment toward supporting school improvement in
traditional public schools and public charter schools, while also demonstrating and
evaluating the effectiveness of fostering school improvement through a scholarship
or voucher program in which students receive public funding to support their
attendance at private schools.
Under the District of Columbia School Choice Incentive Act, the Secretary of
Education funds the operation of a five-year demonstration scholarship program that
enables children from low-income families in the District of Columbia to attend
private elementary or secondary schools located in the District of Columbia.
Students who are residents of the District of Columbia and who are from families
with incomes not exceeding 185% of the poverty level are eligible to apply for
scholarships valued at up to $7,500 to cover the costs of tuition, fees, and
transportation expenses associated with attending a participating private elementary
or secondary school located in the District of Columbia. Students are selected to
receive scholarships through a lottery. Scholarship recipients remain eligible to
continue to participate in the program in subsequent years, so long as their family
income does not exceed 200% of the poverty level. Students enrolled in schools
15 Spencer S. Hsu, “House Votes to Repeal District Gun Restriction,” Washington Post, July
1, 2005, p. B01.

---

CRS-18
identified for school improvement, corrective action, or restructuring under Title I-A
of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act are given priority in receiving
scholarships (through weighting procedures in the lottery); however, all students
meeting program eligibility criteria are eligible for scholarships regardless of whether
they were previously enrolled in public or private schools.16
The demonstration project includes a rigorous evaluation component.17 Among
the issues required to be evaluated as part of the program are the academic
achievement of scholarship recipients compared with non-recipients, the success of
the program in expanding school choice options, and the impact of the program on
students and public schools in the District of Columbia.18 In the first year of
implementation, school year 2004-2005, 58 of 109 private schools located in the
District of Columbia participated in the program, making available slots for 1,264
students. Based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau, it is estimated that over
40,000 students may be eligible for the program, and for 2004-2005, 1,848 students
who met the program’s eligibility criteria applied for scholarships.
The enactment of the program was contentious, and following the first year of
implementation, the program remains controversial. Some of the controversy may
be fueled by effects of the limited time for implementation following enactment. The
program has been criticized on several fronts including:
! the participation of students and schools has not been as great as was
anticipated;
! a sizeable percentage of first-year scholarship recipients had
previously been enrolled in private schools;
! a mismatch between scholarship applicants and available slots in
schools across the various grade levels (with an oversupply at the
elementary level and a shortage at the secondary level), and
! the $7,500 scholarship amount does not meet the full cost of
attendance for most secondary schools.
In reaction to some of these concerns, proposals may be made to amend some of the
terms and conditions of the opportunity scholarship program. However, given the
early stages of the program and the evaluation component, value may found in
continuing the demonstration program in its current form before significant changes
are made.
16 For a review of the program and policy issues raised prior to its enactment, see CRS
Report RL32019, Proposals to Establish a K-12 Scholarship or Voucher Program in the
District of Columbia: Policy Issues and Analysis, by David P. Smole.
17 The first year evaluation report was released in April 2005. U.S. Dept. of Education,
National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Evaluation of the DC
Opportunity Scholarship Program: First Year Report on Participation, by Patrick Wolf,
Babette Gutmann, Nata Eissa, Michael Puma, and Marsha Silverberg (Washington, DC:
GPO, 2005).
18 P.L. 108-199 § 309(a)(4), 118 STAT. 132.

---

CRS-19
The House version of H.R. 3058 would appropriate $14.566 million for the
program, including $1 million for administrative expenses. This is part of a larger
effort to strengthen elementary and secondary education in the District. The House
bill also includes $13.525 million for the District’s public schools and $13.525
million for District’s public charter schools. This is consistent with the amount
requested by the President for FY2006. The Senate bill, S. 1446, includes $14
million for private school vouchers, which is $1.566 million less than the House bill
and the President’s request. The Senate bill also includes $13 million for public
school improvements and $13 million in support of the city’s public charter schools.
Marriage Development Accounts
Citing marriage as an important determinant in the poverty status of children and
noting that a majority of low-income children in the District are born to single
mothers, Senator Brownback, the Chairman of the Senate District of Columbia
Appropriations Subcommittee, included a provision in the District of Columbia
Appropriations Act for FY2006, S. 1446, that would establish Marriage Development
Accounts (MDAs). As a means of strengthening families and improving the life
chances of low-income children, S. 1446 includes $3 million in a special federal
payment to fund efforts to encourage marriage among low-income District residents
through the use of financial incentives and life skills training. The provision would
appropriate $1.5 million to establish a Marriage Development Account Fund to be
administered by the Capital Area Asset Building Corporation, $850,000 to be
awarded to the National Center for Fathering, and $650,000 for the East Capitol
Center for Change in support of mentoring and counseling programs. Under the
proposal, married couples with adjusted gross incomes of less than $50,000 and net
assets of less than $10,000 would be encouraged to establish MDAs. Savings
deposited in such accounts would be matched at a ratio of 3:1, with a maximum
amount of $9,000. According to the report accompanying the bill (S.Rept. 109-106),
couples would receive money management training and assistance to help repair their
credit or improve their financial skills. Couples could used their MDA savings to
purchase a home, finance education, or start a business. Under the proposal, engaged
couples would receive similar benefits, and the bill would provide similar assistance
to individuals with an adjusted gross income that is less than $25,000. They would
receive a maximum match of $4,500.
In addition to financial incentives, the proposal would provide life skills training
for participating couples. This training would be provided through the two local non-
profit organizations — the National Center for Fathering and the East Capitol Center
for Change. These organizations would be encouraged to expand their network of
service providers to include churches, faith-based organizations, and other nonprofit
organizations. The proposal, which was sponsored by Senator Brownback, has the
support of the District officials. However, the provision is not without its critics, who
argue that there may be more important reasons for marriage other than financial
incentives.
The proposed MDA accounts are similar to Individual Development Accounts
(IDAs), which are also designed to assist low-income persons in increasing their
savings and improving their financial futures. IDAs provide a 2:1 match to reward
the monthly savings of people who are trying to buy their first home, pay for college,

---

CRS-20
or start or expand a small business. Eligibility is not linked to marriage. In the
District, IDAs are limited to couples earning less than $25,660 and individuals
earning less than $19,140. The House bill does not include a similar provision.

---