FY2013 Appropriations: District of Columbia
Eugene Boyd
Analyst in Federalism and Economic Development Policy
August 10, 2012
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R42657
CRS Report for Congress
Pr
epared for Members and Committees of Congress

---

FY2013 Appropriations: District of Columbia

Summary
On February 13, 2012, the Obama Administration released its detailed budget request for
FY2013. The Administration’s proposed budget includes $677.8 million in special federal
payments to the District of Columbia, which is $12.2 million more than the District’s FY2012
appropriation of $665.6 million in special federal paymens. Approximately 78% ($526.7 million)
of the President’s proposed budget request for the District would be targeted to the courts and
criminal justice system. The President’s budget request also includes $95.6 million in support of
education initiatives. This represents 14% of the Administration’s federal payment budget request
for the District of Columbia.
On May 15, 2012, the District of Columbia Council approved a FY2013 budget that included
$11.4 billion in operating funds and $1.1 billion in capital outlays. The mayor signed the measure
(A19-0381) on June 15, 2012. Included in the act was a provision that would grant the District
some level of budget autonomy in the expenditure of local funds, if Congress failed to pass and
the President failed sign a District of Columbia appropriations act before the beginning of the
2013 fiscal year.
On June 14, 2012, the Senate Appropriations Committee reported S. 3301, its version of the
Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act for FY2013, with an
accompanying report (S.Rept. 112-177). As reported, the bill recommended $676.2 million in
special federal payments to the District. This is $10.6 million more than appropriated for FY2012,
and $1.6 million less than requested by the Administration. On June 26, 2012, a House
Appropriations Committee approved its version of the Financial Services and General
Government Appropriations Act of 2013, H.R. 6020, with an accompanying report (H.Rept. 112-
550). The bill includes $673.7 million in special federal payments to the District. This is $8.1
million more than appropriated for FY2012, $4.1 million less than requested by the
Administration, and $2.5 million less than recommended by the Senate bill.
The Senate bill, S. 3301, 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, but would continue the prohibition against the use of federal funds. The House
bill would restrict the use of District and federal funds for abortion services to instances involving
rape, incest, or a health threat to the life of the pregnant woman. Both the House and Senate bills
would continue to prohibit the use of federal funds to regulate and decriminalize the medical use
of marijuana. Both the House and the Senate bills would provide funding for a school voucher
program, which was not funded in FY2012. The private school voucher program is opposed by
some city leaders, but supported by others. The Administration did not include funding for school
vouchers in its budget submission to Congress. This report will be updated as events warrant.

Congressional Research Service

---

FY2013 Appropriations: District of Columbia

Contents
FY2013 Budget Request.................................................................................................................. 1
The President’s Budget Request................................................................................................ 2
District’s Budget........................................................................................................................ 3
Senate Bill, S. 3301............................................................................................................. 3
House Bill H.R. 6020 .......................................................................................................... 4
Special Federal Payments.......................................................................................................... 5
Local Operating Budget ............................................................................................................ 7
General Provisions: Key Policy Issues ............................................................................................ 8
Needle Exchange ....................................................................................................................... 8
Medical Marijuana..................................................................................................................... 9
Abortion Provision .................................................................................................................. 11
District of Columbia Opportunity Scholarship Program......................................................... 12

Tables
Table 1. Status of FSGG and District of Columbia Appropriations, FY2013.................................. 1
Table 2. District of Columbia Appropriations, FY2012-FY2013: Special Federal
Payments....................................................................................................................................... 6
Table 3. Division of Expenses: District of Columbia Funds: FY2013 ............................................ 7

Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 13

Congressional Research Service

---

FY2013 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 through the
annual appropriations process.3 The District of Columbia’s budget is included in the Financial
Services and General Government (FSGG) Appropriations bill.
FY2013 Budget Request
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; 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 (FSGG).
Table 1. Status of FSGG and District of Columbia Appropriations, FY2013
Conference Report
Markup
Approval
House
House
Senate
Senate
Conf.
Public
House Senate Report
Passage
Report
Passage
Report
House Senate Law
6/26/2012
6/14/2012
6/26/2012

6/14/2012

H.R. 6020
S. 3301
H.Rept.
S.Rept.




112-550
112-177


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

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

---

FY2013 Appropriations: District of Columbia

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 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
for statehood or congressional voting representation, congressional oversight, and
congressionally imposed restrictions and prohibitions related to social policy.
The President’s Budget Request
On February 13, 2012, the Obama Administration released its detailed budget request for
FY2013. The Administration’s proposed budget includes $677.8 million in special federal
payments to the District of Columbia, which is $12.2 million more than the District’s FY2012
appropriation of $665.6 million. Approximately 78% ($526.7 million) of the President’s proposed
budget request for the District would be targeted to the courts and criminal justice system. This
includes:
• $219.6 million in support of court operations;
• $49.9 million for Defender Services;4
• $215.5 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;
• $39.4 million for the public defender’s office;5 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.6
The President’s budget request also includes $95.6 million in support of education initiatives,
including $60 million to support elementary and secondary education, $500,000 to support the

4 Funds are administered by the Joint Committee on Judicial Administration in the District of Columbia and may be
used to provide court appointed attorneys and other services for (1) indigent persons charged with a criminal offense;
(2) family proceedings in which child neglect is alleged, or where the termination of the parent-child relationship is
under consideration; and (3) the representation and protection of mentally incapacitated individuals and minors whose
parents are deceased. Funds may also be used to provide guardian training and payments for counsel appointed in
adoption proceedings, and for services such as transcripts of court proceedings, expert witness testimony, foreign and
sign language interpretation, and investigations and genetic testing.
5 The Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia is a federal funded, independent organization governed by
an eleven-member Board of Trustee. Created by federal statute (P.L. 91-358, D.C. Code Sec. 2-1601), the Public
Defender Service implements the constitutional mandate to provide criminal defense counsel for indigent individuals.
The organization also provides legal representation for individuals facing involuntary civil commitment in the District’s
mental health system or parole revocation for D.C. Code offenses.
6 This includes $295,000 to the Commission on Judicial Disabilities and Tenure and $205,000 to the Judicial
Nomination Commission.
Congressional Research Service
2

---

FY2013 Appropriations: District of Columbia

D.C. National Guard college access program, and $35.1 million for college tuition assistance.
This represents 14% of the Administration’s federal payment budget request for the District of
Columbia.
District’s Budget
On March 23, 2012, the mayor of the District of Columbia submitted a proposed budget to the
District of Columbia Council. On May 15, 2012, the council approved an FY2013 budget that
included $11.4 billion in operating funds and $1.1 billion in capital outlays. The mayor signed the
measure (A19-0381) on June 15, 2012. Included in the act was a provision that would grant the
District some level of budget autonomy in the expenditure of local funds if Congress failed to
pass and the President failed sign a District of Columbia appropriations act before the beginning
of the 2013 fiscal year. The provision would allow the District to obligate and expend local funds
at the rate set forth in the act during the period in which there is an absence of a federal
appropriations act authorizing the expenditure of local funds. Similar language was included in
the bill, S. 3301, reported by the Senate Appropriations Committee.7 The provision is also
supported by the Administration.8 Both the House and Senate FSGG bills (H.R. 6020 and S.
3301) include language that reference the District’s FY2013 budget submission for purposes of
congressional review and approval.
Senate Bill, S. 3301
On June 14, 2012, the Senate Appropriations Committee reported S. 3301, its version of the
Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act for FY2013, with an
accompanying report (S.Rept. 112-177). As reported, the bill recommended $676.2 million in
special federal payments to the District. This was $10.6 million more than appropriated for
FY2012, and $1.6 million more than requested by the Administration. The bill includes $5.7
million more in funding for court operations than requested by the Administration, but $7.4
million less than appropriated in FY2012. It would appropriate $6.5 million less than the
President’s FY2013 request or the FY2012 appropriated amount for elementary and secondary
education initiatives. These funds would be allocated among three specific initiatives: public
school improvements, support for public charter schools, and funding a private school voucher
program. The Administration’s budget request did not including funding the school voucher
program. As noted above, S. 3301 includes the provision that would allow the District to obligate
and expend locally raised funds in the absence of congressional approval of a District of
Columbia appropriations act.
General Provisions
The Senate bill’s general provisions mirror some of the language included in the House bill. Like
the House bill, S. 3301 includes provisions governing budgetary and fiscal operations and
controls. It also includes provisions restricting or prohibiting the use of federal funds to support

7 S. 3301, Title VIII, § 815.
8 Executive Office of the President, U.S. President (Obama), “Statement of Administration Policy: H.R. 6020 –
Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act, 2013,” June 28, 2012, p. 4,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/legislative/sap/112/saphr6020r_20120628.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
3

---

FY2013 Appropriations: District of Columbia

District statehood or congressional voting representation, including provisions that would
continue prohibiting 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 included changes in three 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, but
would continue the prohibition against the use of federal funds;
• prohibit the use of federal funds to regulate and decriminalize the medical use
of marijuana; and
• maintain the current prohibition on the use of federal funds to support a needle
exchange program.
House Bill H.R. 6020
On June 26, 2012, a House Appropriations Committee approved the Financial Services and
General Government Appropriations Act of 2013, H.R. 6020, with an accompanying report
(H.Rept. 112-550). The bill includes $673.7 million in special federal payments to the District.
This is $12.2 million more than appropriated for FY2012, $4.1 million less than requested by the
Administration, and $2.5 million less than recommended by the Senate bill. The bill includes a
substantial increase ($12.5 million) in the amount requested by the Administration for court
operations, and a $5.1 million reduction in the amount that would be appropriated for the
Resident Tuition Support (college access) program. The bill also would direct $60 million in
funding to support the District of Columbia Public Schools ($20 million), public charter schools
($20 million), and private school vouchers ($20 million).
General Provisions
Like its Senate counterpart, 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 budget for all District government agencies
and the District public schools within 30 days after the passage of the bill.
The House bill also includes several general provisions relating to statehood or congressional
representation for the District, including provisions that would continue prohibiting the use of
federal funds to:
Congressional Research Service
4

---

FY2013 Appropriations: District of Columbia

• 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.
Unlike the Senate bill, H.R. 6020 would prohibit the use of both District and federal funds for
abortion service. In addition, the bill would continue to prohibit the use of federal funds to
administer needle exchange or to decriminalize or regulate the medical use of marijuana. Despite
the federal prohibition, on June 12, 2012, the city announced the certification of four privately
operated medical marijuana dispensaries.9 The dispensaries are set to open in the fall 2012.
The Obama Administration issued a Statement of Administration Policy (SAP) on H.R. 6020, on
June 28, 2012.10 The SAP urged the House to include language that would allow the District to
expend its own funds should Congress fail to approve the District budget before the beginning of
the fiscal year. The Statement also included language objecting to the provision that would
prohibit the use of federal funds to support the District’s needle exchange program, noting that the
restriction “is contrary to current law and the Administration’s policy to allow funds to be used in
locations where local authorities deem needle exchange programs to be effective and
appropriate.” The Statement also objected to a provision that would prohibit the use of District
funds for abortion services, noting that the restriction undermines the principle of home rule.
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. As noted in the sections
above, the Obama Administration budget proposal for FY2013 includes a request for $677.8
million in special federal payments for the District of Columbia. The Financial Services and
General Government Appropriations Act for FY2013, H.R. 6020, as reported by the House
Appropriations Committee on June 26, 2012, included $673.7 million in special federal payments
to the District of Columbia. Weeks earlier, on June 14, 2012, the Senate Appropriations
Committee reported its version of the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations
Act, S. 3301. The Senate bill recommended $676.2 million in special federal payments for the
District of Columbia.

9 District of Columbia Department of Health, “DC Department of Health Notifies Applicants Eligible to Register for
Medical Marijuana Dispensaries,” press release, June 12, 2012, http://newsroom.dc.gov/show.aspx/agency/doh/section/
2/release/23453/year/2012.
10 Executive Office of the President, U.S. President (Obama), “Statement of Administration Policy: H.R. 6020 –
Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act, 2013,” June 28, 2012, p. 4,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/legislative/sap/112/saphr6020r_20120628.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
5

---

FY2013 Appropriations: District of Columbia

Table 2 shows details of the District’s federal payments, including the FY2012 enacted amounts,
the amounts included in the President’s FY2013 budget request, and the amounts recommended
by the House and Senate Appropriations Committees.
Table 2. District of Columbia Appropriations, FY2012-FY2013: Special Federal
Payments
(in millions of dollars)
FY2013
FY2013
FY2013
FY2012
FY2013
District
House
Senate
FY2013

Enacted
Request
Request
Committee
Committee
Enacted
Resident Tuition
30.000 35.100 35.100
30.000
35.100

Support
Emergency Planning
14.900 24.700 24.700
24.700
24.700

and Security
District of Columbia
232.841 219.651 219.651
232.181
225.370

Courts
Defender Services
55.000
49.890
49.890
49.890
50.000

Court Services and
Offender Supervision
212.983 215.506 215.506
214.200
215.506

Agency
Public Defender
37.241 39.376 39.376
38.282
39.376

Service
Criminal Justice
Coordinating
1.800 1.800 1.800
1.800
1.800

Council
Judicial Commissions
0.500
0.500
0.500
0.500
0.500

Water and Sewer
15.000 11.500 11.500
11.500
15.000

Authority
School Improvement
60.000
60.000
60.000
60.000
53.500


Public Schools
36.600
36.600
36.600
20.000
20.000


Public Charter
23.400 23.400 23.400
20.000
20.000

Schools

Education
Vouchers
0.000 0.000 0.000
20.000
13.500


Community
0.000 0.000 0.000
0.000
0.000

College
D.C. National Guard
0.375
0.500
0.500
0.375
0.500

D.C. Comm. on Arts
0.000 2.500 2.500
0.000 0.000
and Hum.
Job Training Program
0.000
2.000
2.000
0.000 0.000
St. Elizabeth Hospital
Campus
0.000 9.800 9.565
9.800
9.800

Redevelopment
HIV/AIDS Prevention
5.000
5.000
5.000
0.500
5.000

Special Federal
665.640 677.823 677.588
673.728
676.152

Payments (total)
Congressional Research Service
6

---

FY2013 Appropriations: District of Columbia

Sources:. FY2012 Enacted, FY2013 Request, and FY2013 committee recommendations are taken from the
H.Rept. 112-550 accompanying H.R. 6020, the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act
for FY2013, and S.Rept. 112-550, accompanying S. 3301, the Financial Services and General Government
Appropriations Act, FY2013. Columns may not equal the total due to rounding.
Local Operating Budget
As noted previously, the District’s General Fund Budget for FY2013, which was signed by the
mayor on June 15, 2012, as A19-0381,was incorporated in both the House and Senate bills (H.R.
6020 and S. 3301) by reference for the purpose of congressional review and approval. The
District’s FY2013 General Fund Budget totaled $11.4 billion, including $9.4 billion for operating
expenses and $1.9 billion for enterprise funds (Table 3). Of the $11.4 billion budgeted for
operating expenses, $998.2 million is projected to be derived from federal grants and $1.672
billion from Medicaid payments.
Table 3. Division of Expenses: District of Columbia Funds: FY2013
(in millions of dollars)
District
House

Senate
Final
General Fund
Gov. Dir. & Support
631.986
—
—

Econ. Dev. and Reg.
393.538
—
—

Public Safety and
1,112.704 —
—

Justice
Public Education
1,956.869
—
—

Human Support
3,767.381 —
—

Services
Public Works
601.757
—
—

Financing and Other
951.575
—
—

Gen. Oper. Exp.
9,415.810 9,415.810 9,415.810

Enterprise Funds
WASA 456.775
—
—
Wash. Aqueduct
63.041
—
—

Lottery 250.000
— —
Retirement Board
30.338
—
—

Convention Center
115.711
—
—

Housing Fin. Agency
8.735
—
—

Univ. D.C.
169.270
—
—

Library Trust Fund
0.017



Unemploy. Ins. Trust
480.000 —
—

Fund
Housing Prod. Trust
84.453 —
—

Fund
Tax Increment Fin.
60.468
—
—

Congressional Research Service
7

---

FY2013 Appropriations: District of Columbia

Basebal Fund
83.961
—
—

Repayment of PILOT
15.993
—
—

Not-for-Profit
132.477 —
—

Hospital Corp.
Tot. Enterp. Fund 1,951.239
—
—

Tot. Oper. Exp.
11,367.049
11,367.049
11,367.049

Capital Outlay
Cap.
Construction
1,702.797

—Rescissions
609.739

Tot. Cap. Outlay
1,093.058
1,093.058
1,093.058

General Provisions: 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 faced in reviewing the District’s appropriations for FY2013. 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, opponents 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 restrictions.
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 thus from 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.
Congressional Research Service
8

---

FY2013 Appropriations: District of Columbia

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
accompanying the act encouraged the George W. Bush Administration to include federal funding
to help the city address its HIV/AIDS health crisis.
The President’s budget proposal for FY2013 and House and Senate bills include language that
would retain language included in the FY2012 appropriations act that allowed the use of District
funds, but prohibited the use of federal funds, in support of a needle exchange program. However,
the Obama Administration, in a Statement of Administration Policy issued on June 28, 2012,
included language that urged the House to remove language prohibiting the use of federal funds
in support of a needle exchange program arguing that current federal law allows the use of federal
funds for such programs to prevent or limit the spread of HIV/AIDS among intravenous drug
users.11 The Senate bill includes a similar provision prohibiting the use of federal funds for a
needle exchange program in the District.
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 D.C. 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.12 This ruling
allowed the city to tally the votes from the November 1998 ballot initiative.

11 Executive Office of the President, U.S. President (Obama), “Statement of Administration Policy: H.R. 6020 –
Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act, 2013,” June 28, 2012, p. 4,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/legislative/sap/112/saphr6020r_20120628.pdf.
12 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
9

---

FY2013 Appropriations: District of Columbia

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
court judge ruled that the congressional ban on the use of public funds to put such a ballot
initiative before the voters was unconstitutional.13 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 states14 and the District of Columbia that have
decriminalized or permitted the use of marijuana for medical or therapeutic purposes.15
Since the passage of District of Columbia Appropriations Act for FY2010, subsequent
appropriations acts have not included language prohibiting the use of District funds to regulate
the medical use of marijuana. In 2010, the District of Columbia Council approved legislation
(A18-0429) regulating the medical use of marijuana. Although the legislation was subject to 30-
day congressional review period, which would have allowed it to pass a resolution of disapproval,
Congress took no action to block its implementation. The legislation directed the city’s Health
Department to license up to five facilities to dispense medical marijuana to authorized patients.
The first of those dispensaries is set to begin operations in the fall of 2012.
Both the House and Senate bills (H.R. 6020 and S. 3301) would continue to prohibit the use of
federal funds to carry out any law or regulation that would legalize or reduce federal penalties
associated with the use or distribution of any controlled substance, including the medical use of
marijuana.

13 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).
14 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.
15 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.
Congressional Research Service
10

---

FY2013 Appropriations: District of Columbia

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 have cited 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 woman’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 woman’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.16 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.
1278) after insisting that Congress include language prohibiting the use of District revenues to
pay for abortion services except in cases where the woman’s life was endangered.17
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 woman’s life was
endangered or cases where the pregnancy was the result of rape or incest.
In FY2010, with the passage of P.L. 111-117, Congress lifted the prohibition on the use of District
funds for abortion services, but maintained the restriction on the use of federal funds for such
services except in cases of rape, incest, or a threat to the life of the woman. The position was
reversed with the passage of the appropriations acts for FY2011 (P.L. 112-10) and FY2012 (P.L.
112-74). Those acts included provisions restricting the use of both federal and District funds for
abortion services, except in instances of rape, incest, or the woman’s life was endangered if the
pregnancy was carried to term.
The Obama Administration’s FY2013 budget request includes a provision that would prohibit the
use of federal funds for abortion services except in cases of rape, incest, or when the mother’s life
would be endangered if the pregnancy were carried to term, but did not include language that
would restrict the use of District funds for abortion services. The Senate bill, S. 3301, supports
the Administration position restricting the use of federal funds. The House bill, H.R. 6020,

16 “District Policies Hit Hard in Spending Bill,” Congressional Quarterly Almanac, vol. XLIV (Washington:
Congressional Quarterly, Inc., 1988), p. 713.
17 “D.C. Bill Vetoed Twice Over Abortion Funding,” Congressional Quarterly Almanac, vol. XLV (Washington:
Congressional Quarterly, Inc., 1989), p. 757.
Congressional Research Service
11

---

FY2013 Appropriations: District of Columbia

includes language that would restrict the use of both federal and District funds for abortion
services, except in instances of rape, incest, or the woman’s life is endangered.
Two bills have advanced in the House that would ban or restrict the provision of abortion services
in the District of Columbia. On May 4, 2012, the House passed H.R. 3, the No Taxpayer Funding
for Abortions Act. The measure includes a provision, Section 309, that would permanently
prohibit the use of federal and District funds for abortion services, except in instances of rape,
incest, or a threat to the life of the woman.
On June 17, 2012, the House Judiciary Committee ordered reported H.R. 3803, the District of
Columbia Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. The bill would permanently ban doctors
and health facilities from performing abortions in the District after the 20th week of pregnancy,
except when the pregnancy will result in the woman suffering from a physical disorder, injury, or
illness that endangers her life. It would impose fines and imprisonment on doctors who violated
the act and would allow the pregnant woman, the father of the unborn child, or maternal
grandparents of a pregnant minor to bring a civil action against any person who performed an
abortion after the 20th week of pregnancy. The act would require any physician that performs an
abortion to report specific information to the relevant health agency in the District., including
post-fertilization age of the fetus and the abortion method used. The District health agency is
required to compile such information and issued an annual report to the public. The District’s
delegate to Congress, Eleanor Holmes Norton, though not allowed to testify before the
Committee, spoke out against the measures as infringements on home rule.18
District of Columbia Opportunity Scholarship Program19
The Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2004, P.L. 108-199, which combined six
appropriations bills—including the FY2004 District of Columbia Appropriations Act—authorized
and appropriated funding for the Opportunity Scholarship program, a federally funded school
voucher program for the District of Columbia. The program provides scholarships (also known as
vouchers) to students in the District of Columbia to attend participating private elementary and
secondary schools, including religiously affiliated private schools. P.L. 108-199 also provided
funding for the District of Columbia Public Schools (DCPS) for the improvement of public
education and for the State Education Office for public charter schools. The provision of federal
funds for DCPS, public charter schools, and vouchers is commonly referred to as the “three-prong
approach” to supporting elementary and secondary education in the District of Columbia.
The Opportunity Scholarship program was subsequently reauthorized through the Scholarship for
Opportunity and Results Act (division C of the Department of Defense and Full-Year Continuing
Appropriations Act, 2011; P.L. 112-10). Appropriations for the program were authorized for
FY2012 through FY2016 at $60 million each year. P.L. 112-10 requires that appropriations
provided for the program be divided evenly among DCPS for the improvement of public
education, public charter schools to improve and expand quality public charter schools, and the
Opportunity Scholarship program, regardless of the actual amount appropriated. Thus, the

18 Representative Eleanor Holmes Norton, “District of Columbia Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act, H..R.
3803,” House debate, Congressional Record, July 31, 2012, p. H5445.
19 This section was authored by Rebecca Skinner and Erin Lomax. For more information on the DC Opportunity
Scholarship Program, see CRS Report R40574, District of Columbia Opportunity Scholarship Program:
Implementation Status and Policy Issues, by Rebecca R. Skinner and Erin D. Lomax.
Congressional Research Service
12

---

FY2013 Appropriations: District of Columbia

reauthorized Opportunity Scholarship program continues to be included in a broader approach to
supporting elementary and secondary education in the District of Columbia.
The Obama Administration’s proposed budget for FY2013 included funds only for DCPS and
public charter schools. No funds were requested to support the Opportunity Scholarship
program.20 S. 3301, as reported, would provide a total of $53.5 million for a federal payment for
school improvement. Rather than dividing these funds equally between the aforementioned three
prongs, funds would be provided as follows: $20 million for DCPS, $20 million for public charter
schools, and $13.5 million for the Opportunity Scholarship program. H.R. 6020, as reported,
would provide $60 million for a federal payment for school improvement with $20 million
provided to each of the three prongs.


Author Contact Information

Eugene Boyd

Analyst in Federalism and Economic Development
Policy
eboyd@crs.loc.gov, 7-8689


20 The request included $36.6 million for DCPS and $23.4 million for public charter schools to support facilities and
other unmet needs. The Administration indicated that funds were not needed for the Opportunity Scholarship program
as funds remaining from prior fiscal years were sufficient to support voucher recipients through the 2013-2014 school
year and to make new awards to replace spaces that become available due to attrition. (Office of Management and
Budget, Fiscal Year 2013 Appendix, Budget of the U.S. Government, 2012, pp. 1317-1318,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/appendix.pdf.)
Congressional Research Service
13

---