.
FY2010 Appropriations: District of Columbia
Eugene Boyd
Analyst in Federalism and Economic Development Policy
July 31, 2009
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R40743
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress
c11173008
.
FY2010 Appropriations: District of Columbia
Summary
On May 7, 2009, the Obama Administration released its detailed budget requests for FY2010,
which included $739.1 million in special federal payments to the District of Columbia.
Approximately three-quarters—$544.1 million—of the President’s proposed budget request for
the District would be used to support the courts and criminal justice system. The President also
requested $109.5 million in support of college tuition assistance and elementary and secondary
education initiatives
On May 12, 2009, the District of Columbia Council passed the city’s FY2010 operating budget.
The bill, which was not signed by the mayor, proposed an operating fund budget of $8,917.8
million, and included $1,433.1 million in enterprise funds. However, on July 17, 2009 the mayor
submitted a revised budget to address a growing budget shortfall currently projected at $150
million for FY2010. This delay in the submission of a budget for congressional review is due in
large part to declining revenue projections related to the current economic recession. According to
the mayor and the city’s chief financial officer, the city faces the task of closing a $603 million
budget gap, including a $453 million shortfall in its current FY2009 budget, and a $150 million
projected shortfall for FY2010. In the absence of a formal submission of the city’s budget,
Congress has begin consideration of special federal payments and general provision components
of the District appropriations act.
On July 8, 2009, the Senate Appropriations Committee reported its version of the Financial
Services and General Government Appropriations Act for FY2010, S. 1432 with an
accompanying report (S.Rept. 111-43). As reported, the bill recommends $727.4 million in
special federal payments to the District. This is $40 million less than recommended by the House,
and $12 million less than requested by the Administration.
On July 16, 2009, the House approved the Financial Services and General Government
Appropriations Act for FY2010, H.R. 3170, by a vote of 219 to 208 (Roll no. 571). The bill
includes $768.3 million in special federal payments to the District. This is $29.2 million more
than requested by the Administration and $25.9 million more than appropriated for FY2009.
The House and Senate versions of the Financial Services and General Government
Appropriations Act for FY2010 include a number of controversial provisions. Both bills would
lift the ban on the use of District funds to provide abortion services. In an effort to combat the
spread of AIDS and HIV among intravenous drug abusers, the Senate bill would allow the use of
District funds, but prohibit the use of federal funds for a needle exchange program, while the
House-passed bill would lift the prohibition on the use of both District and federal funds for such
efforts. S. 1432 would continue to prohibit the use of federal and District funds to implement a
medical marijuana ballot initiative, while H.R. 1170 would lift the prohibition on the use of both
District and federal funds to legalize the use of marijuana for medical or therapeutic purposes
These House provisions represent a reversal or modification of provisions included in previous
appropriations acts. This report will be updated as events warrant.
Congressional Research Service
.
FY2010 Appropriations: District of Columbia
Contents
FY2010 Budget Request ............................................................................................................. 1
The President’s Budget Request ............................................................................................ 2
District’s Budget ................................................................................................................... 2
Congressional Action ............................................................................................................ 3
House Bill....................................................................................................................... 3
Senate Bill ...................................................................................................................... 4
Special Federal Payments...................................................................................................... 5
Local Operating Budget ........................................................................................................ 7
Key Policy Issues........................................................................................................................ 9
Needle Exchange .................................................................................................................. 9
Medical Marijuana .............................................................................................................. 10
Abortion Provision.............................................................................................................. 11
Tables
Table 1. Status of District of Columbia Appropriations, FY2010.................................................. 1
Table 2. District of Columbia Appropriations, FY2009-FY2010: Special Federal Payment .......... 6
Table 3. Division of Expenses: District of Columbia Funds: FY2010 ........................................... 8
Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 12
Congressional Research Service
.
FY2010 Appropriations: District of Columbia
he authority for congressional review and approval of the District of Columbia’s budget is
derived from the Constitution and the District of Columbia Self-Government and
T Government Reorganization Act of 1973 (Home Rule Act).1 The Constitution gives
Congress the power to “exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever” pertaining to the
District of Columbia. In 1973, Congress granted the city limited home rule authority and
empowered citizens of the District to elect a mayor and city council. However, Congress retained
the authority to review and approve all District laws, including the District’s annual budget. As
required by the Home Rule Act, the city council must approve a budget within 56 days after
receiving a budget proposal from the mayor.2 The approved budget must then be transmitted to
the President, who forwards it to Congress for its review, modification, and approval.3
Table 1. Status of District of Columbia Appropriations, FY2010
Subcommittee
Conference Report
Markup
Approval
House
House
Senate
Senate
Conf.
Public
House Senate Report
Passage
Report
Passage
Report
House Senate Law
6/25/09
7/8/09
—
7/16/09
— — — — — —
H.R. 3170
S. 1432
H.Rept.
111-202
219-208
S.Rept.
111-43
— — — — —
FY2010 Budget Request
District of Columbia appropriations acts typically include the following three components:
1. Special federal payments appropriated by Congress to be used to fund particular
initiatives or activities of interest to Congress or the Administration.
2. The District’s operating budget, which includes funds to cover the day-to-day
functions, activities, and responsibilities of the government, enterprise funds that
provide for the operation and maintenance of government facilities or services
that are entirely or primarily supported by user-based fees, and long-term capital
outlays such as road improvements. District operating budget expenditures are
paid for by revenues generated through local taxes (sales and income), federal
funds for which the District qualifies, and fees and other sources of funds.
3. General provisions are the typically the third component of the District’s budget
reviewed and approved by Congress. These provisions can be grouped into
several distinct, but overlapping categories with the most predominant being
provisions relating to fiscal and budgetary directives and controls. Other
provisions include administrative directives and controls; limitations on lobbying
1 See Article I, Sec. 8, clause 17 of the U.S. Constitution and Section 446 of P.L. 93-198, 87 Stat. 801.
2 120 Stat. 2028.
3 87 Stat. 801.
Congressional Research Service
1
.
FY2010 Appropriations: District of Columbia
for statehood or congressional voting representation, congressional oversight, and
congressionally imposed restrictions and prohibitions related to social policy.
The President’s Budget Request
On May 7, 2009, the Obama Administration released its detailed budget requests for FY2010.
The Administration’s proposed budget includes $739.1 million in special federal payments to the
District of Columbia, which is slightly lower than the District’s FY2009 appropriation of $742.4
million. Approximately three-quarters ($544.1 million) of the President’s proposed budget request
for the District would be targeted to the courts and criminal justice system. This includes:
• $248.4 million in support of court operations;
• $52.2 million for Defender Services;
• $203.5 million for the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency for
the District of Columbia, an independent federal agency responsible for the
District’s pretrial services, adult probation, and parole supervision functions;
• $1.8 million for the Criminal Justice Coordinating Council;
• $37.3 million for the public defender’s office; and
• $500,000 to cover costs associated with investigating judicial misconduct
complaints and recommending candidates to the President for vacancies to the
District of Columbia Court of Appeals and the District of Columbia Superior
Court.4
The President’s budget request also includes $109.5 million in support of education initiatives,
including $74.4 million to support elementary and secondary education, and $35.1 million for
college tuition assistance. This represents 17% of the Administration’s budget request.
District’s Budget
District revenues, like those of most local governments and states, have been negatively affected
by the current economic recession. On March 20, 2009, the mayor of the District of Columbia
submitted a proposed budget to the District of Columbia Council. On May 12, 2009, the council
approved a FY2010 budget that included $8.9 billion in operating funds, $1.4 billion in enterprise
funds, and $631.6 million in capital outlays. In June the District’s chief financial officer issued
2009 revenue estimates that identified a projected $340 million budget gap, including a $190
million shortfall in FY2009, and a $150 million budget gap for FY2010.5 On July 16, 2009, the
mayor noted that the projected budget shortfall had grown to $603 million, including a $453
million shortfall in FY2009, and a $150 million projected budget gap for FY2010.6 He also
4 This includes $295,000 to the Commission on Judicial Disabilities and Tenure and $205,000 to the Judicial
Nomination Commission.
5 Government of the District of Columbia, Office of the Chief Financial Officer, June 2009 Revenue Estimates,
Washington, D.C., June 22, 2009, http://newsroom.dc.gov/show.aspx/agency/cfo/section/2/release/17431.
6 Executive Office of the Mayor of the District of Columbia, “Fenty Outlines Proposal to Close District’s Budget Gap,”
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
2
.
FY2010 Appropriations: District of Columbia
outlined proposals to address the FY2009 and FY2010 revenue shortfalls including the
reallocation or conversion of previous years’ unspent dedicated tax revenues to local funds,
agency spending reductions and savings, the use of federal stimulus funding from the American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the sale of District assets, and the use of the city’s contingency
reserve fund, which must be replenished within two years.7 .
Congressional Action
Congress not only appropriates federal payments to the District to fund certain activities, but also
reviews, and may modify, the District’s entire budget, including the expenditure of local funds as
outlined in the District’s Home Rule Act. Since FY2006, the District’s appropriations act has been
included in a multi-agency appropriations bill; but, before FY2006 the District budget was
considered by the House and the Senate as a stand-alone bill. It is currently included in the
Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act. Because of efforts to close a
significant budget gap, District officials have not yet submitted its general operating budget for
congressional consideration. However, both the House and the Senate have taken up
consideration of other components of the District of Columbia appropriations act, namely, special
federal payments and general provisions.
House Bill
On June 25, 2009, a House subcommittee conducted a markup of the Financial Services and
General Government Appropriations Act of 2010, H.R. 3170, and forwarded the bill to the
Appropriations Committee for its consideration. On July 10, 2009, the committee reported out the
bill (H.Rept. 111-202), which included $768.3 million in special federal payments to the District.
This is $29.2 million more than requested by the Administration and $25.9 million more than
appropriated for FY2009. The bill includes a substantial increase ($20 million) above the amount
requested by the Administration for court operations. The bill also directs $20 million in
additional funding to support the District of Columbia Public Schools while reducing funding for
school vouchers by almost $2 million. On July 16, 2009, the House approved H.R. 3170 by a vote
of 219 to 208 (Roll no. 571).
General Provisions
The House bill includes several general provisions governing budgetary and fiscal operations and
controls including prohibiting deficit spending within budget accounts; establishing restrictions
on the reprogramming of funds, and allowing the transfer of local funds to capital and enterprise
fund accounts. In addition, the bill would require the city’s Chief Financial Officer to submit a
revised operating budgets for all District government agencies and the District public schools
within 30 days after the passage of the bill.
(...continued)
press release, July 16, 2009, http://dc.gov/mayor/news/release.asp?id=1640&mon=200907.
7 Ibid.
Congressional Research Service
3
.
FY2010 Appropriations: District of Columbia
The House bill also includes several general provisions relating to statehood or congressional
representation for the District, including provisions that would continue to prohibit the use of
federal funds to:
• support or defeat any legislation being considered by Congress or a state
legislature;
• cover salaries, expenses, and other costs associated with the office of
Statehood Representative and Statehood Senator for the District of Columbia;
and
• support efforts by the District of Columbia Attorney General or any other
officer of the District government to provide assistance for any petition drive
or civil action seeking voting representation in Congress for citizens of the
District.
In addition, the bill includes significant changes in a number of controversial provisions (social
riders) that city officials have sought to eliminate or modify, including those related to medical
marijuana, needle exchange, and abortion services. Despite objections raised by Republican
Members of the House, the bill was brought to the floor under a restrictive rule (H.Res. 644) that
did not allow Members to offer amendments on several controversial provisions related to same-
sex marriage, medical marijuana, abortion, and needle exchange. As passed by the House, H.R.
3170 would retain the prohibition on the use of federal funds, but would lift the prohibition on the
use of District funds to:
• provide abortion services; and
• regulate the medical use of marijuana.
The bill also would eliminate the prohibition on the use of both federal and District funds to
support a needle exchange program so long as the distribution of sterile hypodermic syringes was
not conducted within 1,000 feet of certain public facilities or youth-oriented activity centers,
including schools, colleges and universities, parks, playgrounds, and recreational centers. The
House-passed provisions represent a lifting of restrictions on the use of District and federal funds
that were put in place when Republicans controlled the House. Removal of these so-called social
riders have been long sought by District officials who viewed them as antithetical to the concept
of home rule.
Senate Bill
On July 8, 2009, the Senate Appropriations Committee reported S. 1432, its version of the
Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act for FY2010, with an
accompanying report (S.Rept. 111-43). As reported, the bill recommends $727.4 million in
special federal payments to the District. This is $40 million less than recommended by the House,
and $12 million less than requested by the Administration. The bill includes $10 million less in
funding for court operations than recommended by the Administration. It would appropriate an
additional $21 million in funding to support the District of Columbia Public Schools while
reducing funding for school vouchers by almost $1 million.
Congressional Research Service
4
.
FY2010 Appropriations: District of Columbia
General Provision
The Senate bill’s general provisions mirror some of the language included in the House bill. Like
the House bill, S. 1432 includes provisions governing budgetary and fiscal operations and
controls. It also includes provisions restricting the use of federal funds to support District
statehood or congressional voting representation, including provisions that would continue to
prohibit the use of federal funds to:
• support or defeat any legislation being considered by Congress or a state
legislature;
• cover salaries expenses and other costs associated with the office of Statehood
Representative and Statehood Senator for the District of Columbia; and
• support efforts by the District of Columbia Attorney General or any other
officer of the District government to provide assistance for any petition drive
or civil action seeking voting representation in Congress for citizens of the
District.
The bill also includes changes in two provisions that city officials have sought to eliminate or
modify. The bill would:
• lift the prohibition on the use of District funds to provide abortion services,
which is consistent with the House bill;
• maintain the prohibition of the use of federal and District funds to regulate and
decriminalize the medical use of marijuana (unlike the House bill it allows for
the use of District funds to regulate medical marijuana); and
• maintain the current prohibition on the use of federal funds to support a needle
exchange program (unlike the House bill, which lifts the restriction on both
federal and District funding for such a program).
Special Federal Payments
Both the President and Congress may propose financial assistance to the District in the form of
special federal payments in support of specific activities or priorities. The Obama Administration
budget proposals for FY2010 included a request for $739.1 million in special federal payments
for the District of Columbia. The Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act
for FY2010, H.R. 3170, as reported by the House Appropriations Committee on July 10, 2009,
included $768.3 million in special federal payments to the District of Columbia. Two days earlier,
on July 8, 2009, the Senate Appropriations Committee reported its version of the Financial
Services and General Government Appropriations Act, S. 1432. The Senate bill recommended
$727.4 million in special federal payments for the District of Columbia.
Table 2 of this report shows details of the District’s federal payments, including the FY2009
enacted amounts, the amounts included in the President’s FY2010 budget request, and the
amounts recommended by the House and Senate Appropriations Committees.
Congressional Research Service
5
.
FY2010 Appropriations: District of Columbia
Table 2. District of Columbia Appropriations, FY2009-FY2010: Special Federal
Payment
(in millions of dollars)
FY2009
FY2010
FY2010 House
FY2010 Senate
FY2010
Enacted
Request
Passed
Committee
Enacted
Resident Tuition Support
$35.1
35.1
35.1
35.1
—
Emergency Planning and
Security
39.2 15.0 15.0
15.4
—
District of Columbia
Courts
248.4 248.6 268.9
258.5
—
Defender Services
52.5
52.5
55.0
55.0
—
Court Services and
Offender Supervision
203.5 212.4 212.4
212.4
—
Agency
Public Defender Service
35.7
37.3
37.3
37.3
—
Criminal Justice
Coordinating Council
1.8
1.8
2.0
1.8
—
Judicial Commissions
—
0.5
0.5
0.5
—
Water and Sewer
Authority
16.0 20.0 20.4
20.0
—
Office of the Chief
Financial Officer
4.9 0.0 1.7
1.0
—
Living Classrooms
0..0
0.0
0.1
0.0
—
Nat. Building Museum
0.0
0.0
0.15
0.0
—
Samaritan Ministry
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
—
Washington Center
0.0
0.0
0.12
0.0
—
Wash. Hosp. Center
0.0
0.0
0.05
0.0
—
Whitman-Walker Clinic
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
—
Youth Power Center
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.0
—
I Have a Dream
Foundation
0.8 0.0 0.0
0.0
—
Boys and Girls Club
Project Learn
0.1 0.0 0.0
0.0
—
Capital Area Food Bank
2.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
—
Children’s National
Medical Center
2.9 0.0 0.0
1.0
—
Literacy Education
0.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
—
Education Advancement
Alliance
0.2 0.0 0.0
0.0
—
Everybody Wins
0.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
—
Excel-Automotive
Workforce Dev.
0.3 0.0 0.0
0.0
—
National Children’s
Alliance
0.2 0.0 0.0
0.0
—
Congressional Research Service
6
.
FY2010 Appropriations: District of Columbia
FY2009
FY2010
FY2010 House
FY2010 Senate
FY2010
Enacted
Request
Passed
Committee
Enacted
Safe Kids
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
—
Georgetown Metro
Connection
0.1 0.0 0.12
0.0
—
The Perry School for
Econ. Empowerment
0.1 0.0 0.0
0.0
—
Executive Office of the
Mayor
3.4 0.0 0.0
0.0
—
Marriage Initiative
Matching Funds
1.3 0.0 0.0
0.0
—
Marriage Development
Accounts
2.1 0.0 0.0
0.0
—
School Improvement
54.0
74.4
74.4
75.4
—
Public Schools
20.0
42.2
42.2
42.2
—
Public Charter Schools
20.0
20.0
20.0
20.0
—
Education Vouchers
14.0
12.2
12.2
13.2
—
Jump Start Public School
Reform
20.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 —
Consolidated Laboratory
Facility
21.0 15.0 15.0
15.0
—
Central Library and
Branches
7.0 0.0 0.0
0.0
—
D.C. National Guard
0.0
2.0
2.4
0.0
—
Perm. Supportive Housing
0.0
19.2
19.2
0.0
—
Disconnected Youth
0.0
5.0
5.0
0.0
—
Public Health Services
0.0
0.0
4.0
0.0
—
Special Federal
Payments (total)
742.5
738.8 768.3 727.4
—
Sources:. FY2009 Enacted, FY2010 Request, and FY2010 figures are taken from the H.Rept. 111-202
accompanying H.R. 1170, the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act, FY2010 and
S.Rept. 111-43, accompanying S. 1432, the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act,
FY2010. Columns may not equal the total due to rounding
Local Operating Budget
On May 12, 2009, the District of Columbia Council approved a FY2010 operating budget that
totaled $8.9 billion dollars (Table 3). However, the mayor did not sign the bill because of
concerns raised about declining revenue projections. On July 17, 2009, the mayor submitted a
revised budget for the council’s consideration. This modified FY2010 budget will attempt to close
a projected $150 million budget gap.
Congressional Research Service
7
.
FY2010 Appropriations: District of Columbia
Table 3. Division of Expenses: District of Columbia Funds: FY2010
(in millions of dollars)
District
House
Senate
Conference
General Fund
Gov. Dir. & Support
428.652
—
—
—
Econ. Dev. and Reg.
454.093
—
—
—
Public Safety and
1,312.807
— — —
Justice
Public
Education
1,717.567
— — —
Human Support
3,394.390
— — —
Services
Public
Works
667.659
— — —
Financing and Other
942.737
—
—
—
Gen. Oper. Exp.
8,917.905 8,858.278 8,858.278
—
Enterprise Fund
Bus. Improv. District
23.600
—
—
—
WASA 393.623
— — —
Wash.
Aqueduct
54.356
— — —
Lottery 250.000
— — —
Retirement
Board
30.622
— — —
Convention
Center
97.059
— — —
Housing
Fin.
Agency
8.894
— — —
Univ.
D.C.
142.528
— — —
Dept. Human Res.
2.400
— — —
Trust Fund
Library Trust Fund
0.017
—
—
—
Unemploy. Ins. Trust
251.000
— — —
Fund
Housing Prod. Trust
51.329
— — —
Fund
Tax Increment Fin.
38.887
—
—
—
Basebal
Fund
77.498
— — —
Repayment of PILOT
11.336
—
—
—
Tot. Enterp. Fund
1,433.149
—
—
—
Tot. Oper. Exp.
10,351.054
—
—
—
Capital Outlay
Cap.
Construction
631.552 1,038.889 1,038.889
—
—Consolidated Lab
5.000
—
—
—
—Highway Trust
— 54.893
54.893
—
Tot. Cap. Outlay
631.552
1,038.889
1,038.889
—
Congressional Research Service
8
.
FY2010 Appropriations: District of Columbia
Key Policy Issues
Needle Exchange
Whether to continue a needle exchange program or whether to use federal or District funds to
address the spread of HIV and AIDS among intravenous drug abusers is one of several key policy
issues that Congress faces in reviewing the District’s appropriations for FY2010. 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 HIV and AIDS 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 allowed the use of private funds for a
needle exchange program, but it prohibited 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 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 Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act for FY2008, P.L. 110-161,
contained language that modified the needle exchange provision included in previous
appropriations acts. The act allowed the use of District funds for a needle exchange program
aimed at reducing the spread of HIV and AIDS among users of illegal drugs. The provision was a
departure from previous appropriations acts which prohibited the use of both District and federal
funds in support of a needle exchange program. In addition, the explanatory statement
Congressional Research Service
9
.
FY2010 Appropriations: District of Columbia
accompanying the act encouraged the George W. Bush Administration to include federal funding
to help the city address its HIV/AIDS health crisis.
For FY2010, the District is again seeking to lift the restriction on the use of local funds to finance
a needle exchange program. The President’s budget proposal for FY2010 and S. 1432, as reported
by the Senate Appropriations Committee, include language that would retain the current law that
allows the use of District funds, but prohibits the use of federal funds, in support of a needle
exchange program. However, H.R. 1170 as approved by the House on July 16, 2009, would allow
the use of District and federal funds for a needle exchange program. The bill would prohibit the
distribution of sterile hypodermic needles within 1,000 feet of certain youth-oriented public
institutions and activity centers, including schools, colleges and universities, and recreational
centers.
Medical Marijuana
The city’s medical marijuana initiative is another issue that engenders controversy. The District of
Columbia Appropriations Act for FY1999, P.L. 105-277 (112 Stat. 2681-150), 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.8 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 (113 Stat. 1530), 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 (115 Stat. 953), 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 the 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
8 Turner v. District of Columbia Board of Elections and Ethics, No. 98-2634 Civ. (D.D.C. Sept. 17, 1999;
memorandum opinion).
Congressional Research Service
10
.
FY2010 Appropriations: District of Columbia
court judge ruled that the congressional ban on the use of public funds to put such a ballot
initiative before the voters was unconstitutional.9 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. 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 includes banning the possession of drugs in states10 and the District of Columbia that have
decriminalized or permitted the use of marijuana for medical or therapeutic purposes.11
The President’s budget proposal and S. 1432, as reported by the Senate Appropriations
Committee, would maintain the status quo of prohibiting the use of federal and District funds to
decriminalize and regulate the medical use of marijuana. Conversely, H.R. 1170, as passed by the
House, would lift the prohibition on the use of both District and federal funds to legalize the use
of marijuana for medical or therapeutic purposes.
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. Since 1979, with the passage of the District of
Columbia Appropriations Act of 1980, P.L. 96-93 (93 Stat. 719), Congress has placed some
limitation or prohibition on the use of public funds for abortion services for District residents.
From 1979 to 1988, Congress restricted the use of federal funds for abortion services to cases
where the 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 (102 Stat. 2269-9), 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.12 In 1989, President George H.W. Bush twice vetoed the
District’s FY1990 appropriations act over the abortion issue. He signed P.L. 101-168 (103 Stat.
9 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).
10 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.
11 Gonzales 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.
12 “District Policies Hit Hard in Spending Bill,” Congressional Quarterly Almanac, vol. XLIV (Washington:
Congressional Quarterly, Inc., 1988), p. 713.
Congressional Research Service
11
.
FY2010 Appropriations: District of Columbia
1278) 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.13
The District successfully sought the removal of the provision limiting District funding of abortion
services when Congress considered and passed the District of Columbia Appropriations Act for
FY1994, P.L. 103-127 (107 Stat. 1350). The FY1994 act also reinstated rape and incest as
qualifying circumstances allowing for the public funding of abortion services. The District’s
success was short-lived, however. The District of Columbia Appropriations Act for FY1996, P.L.
104-134 (110 Stat. 1321-91), and subsequent District of Columbia appropriations acts, limited the
use of District and federal funds for abortion services to cases where the mother’s life was
endangered or cases where the pregnancy was the result of rape or incest.
Both H.R. 1170 and S. 1432, would lift the prohibition on the use of District funds to provide
abortion services, but would continue to prohibit the use of federal funds for abortions. The
Obama Administration has proposed revising language included in previous years appropriations
acts prohibiting the use of District and federal funds for abortion services, but would essentially
continue to restrict the use of public funds for abortion services except in cases of rape, incest, or
the woman’s health is threatened. The language proposed by the Administration, and included in
its budget appendix, would prohibit the use of federal funds for abortion services, including any
health insurance plan that may be funded in part with federal funds. However, this restriction may
not apply if the pregnancy is the result of rape or incest, or the woman suffers from a disorder,
injury, condition, or illness that endangers her life. The provision includes a clarifying clause that
notes that the restriction on the use of federal funds would not prohibit the use of District or
private funds, except the District’s Medicaid matching fund contribution.14
Author Contact Information
Eugene Boyd
Analyst in Federalism and Economic Development
Policy
eboyd@crs.loc.gov, 7-8689
13 D.C. Bill Vetoed Twice Over Abortion Funding,” Congressional Quarterly Almanac, vol. XLV (Washington:
Congressional Quarterly, Inc., 1989), p. 757.
14 Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the United States; Appendix, Washington, DC, May 16, 2009, p. 1209,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2010/assets/oia.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
12