FY2014 Appropriations: District of Columbia
Eugene Boyd
Analyst in Federalism and Economic Development Policy
October 15, 2013
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R43253
FY2014 Appropriations: District of Columbia
Summary
On April 10, 2013, the Obama Administration released its detailed budget request for FY2014.
The Administration’s proposed budget includes $676.3 million in special federal payments to the
District of Columbia, which is slightly higher than the $674.1 (excluding sequester) appropriated
for FY2013. Approximately 80% ($543.4 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 $87.2 million in support of education initiatives. This represents 12.9% of
the Administration’s federal payment budget request for the District of Columbia.
On May 22, 2013, the District of Columbia Council approved an FY2014 budget that included
$12.1 billion in total operating funds and $2.1 billion in capital outlays. The mayor signed the
measure (A20-0127) on July 24, 2013. Included in the act are provisions that would grant the
District significant autonomy over its budgetary and legislative affairs. Specifically, the act would
repeal portions of the District’s code governing congressional review of all acts passed by the
District of Columbia Council, including the District’s annual budget and those acts approved by
voters through the referendum process.
On July 25, 2013, the Senate Appropriations Committee reported S. 1371, its version of the
Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act for FY2014, with an
accompanying report (S.Rept. 113-80). As reported, the bill recommended $674.8 million in
special federal payments to the District. This is $700,000 more than appropriated for FY2013,
and $1.5 million less than requested by the Administration. On July 17, 2013, the House
Appropriations Committee approved its version of the Financial Services and General
Government Appropriations Act of 2014, H.R. 2786, with an accompanying report (H.Rept. 113-
172). The bill includes $635.8 million in special federal payments to the District. This is $38.3
million less than appropriated for FY2013, $40.5 million less than requested by the
Administration, and $39 million less than recommended by the Senate committee bill.
The Senate and House committee bills include several general provisions that city officials have
sought to eliminate or modify. The Senate committee 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 for the same services. The House committee bill would restrict the use of both
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 committee bills would (1)
continue to prohibit the use of federal funds to regulate and decriminalize the medical use of
marijuana, (2) continue to prohibit the District from using federal funds for a needle exchange
program to combat the spread of HIV/AIDS, and (3) provide funding for a school voucher
program, but at significantly different funding levels. The Senate committee measure, consistent
with language included in the Administration FY2014 budget documents, includes provisions that
would grant the city budget autonomy over the expenditure of locally raised funds, an action long
sought by District officials. The Senate provisions would permit District officials to obligate and
expend local funds upon enactment by the District, absent active congressional review and
approval, of its local annual budget. In addition, the Senate committee bill would grant the
District the authority to spend local funds if Congress has not enacted a federal appropriation
authorizing the expenditure of local funds before the start of the District’s fiscal year. In an effort
to mitigate the impact of a federal shutdown because of a failure to pass FY2014 appropriations
for the District of Columbia, the House approved, by voice vote, H.J.Res. 71, a measure that
would allow the District to spend its local tax revenues to fund District operations through
Congressional Research Service
FY2014 Appropriations: District of Columbia
December 15, 2013. Despite lobbying efforts by District elected officials, the Senate has not
taken up consideration of the bill. This report will be updated as events warrant.
Congressional Research Service
FY2014 Appropriations: District of Columbia
Contents
FY2014 Budget Request .................................................................................................................. 1
The President’s FY2014 Budget Request .................................................................................. 2
District’s FY2014 Budget .......................................................................................................... 3
Congressional Action ................................................................................................................. 4
Senate Committee Bill, S. 1371 .......................................................................................... 4
House Committee Bill, H.R. 2786 ...................................................................................... 5
Special Federal Payments .......................................................................................................... 6
Local Operating Budget ............................................................................................................ 8
General Provisions: Key Policy Issues ............................................................................................ 9
Needle Exchange ....................................................................................................................... 9
Medical Marijuana ................................................................................................................... 10
Abortion Services .................................................................................................................... 12
District of Columbia Opportunity Scholarship Program ......................................................... 13
Local Budget Autonomy .......................................................................................................... 14
FY2014 Funding Lapse ..................................................................................................... 17
Tables
Table 1. Status of FSGG and District of Columbia Appropriations, FY2014 .................................. 1
Table 2. District of Columbia Appropriations, FY2013-FY2014:
Special Federal Payments ............................................................................................................. 7
Table 3. Division of Expenses: District of Columbia Funds: FY2014 ............................................ 8
Table 4. Date of Enactment of the D.C. Appropriations Act, FY1996-FY2013 ............................ 15
Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 17
Congressional Research Service
FY2014 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
TGovernment 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.
FY2014 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.4 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
proposed Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Acts (FSGG) (S. 1371 and
H.R. 2786).
Table 1. Status of FSGG and District of Columbia Appropriations, FY2014
Conference Report
Markup
Approval
House
House
Senate
Senate
Conf.
Public
House Senate
Re
port
Passage
Report
Passage
Report
House Senate Law
7/17/2013 7/25/2013 7/23/2013
7/25/2013
H.R. 2786
S. 1371
H. Rept.
S.
Rept.
113-172
113-80
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
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.
4 D.C. Code §1-204.46.
Congressional Research Service
1
FY2014 Appropriations: District of Columbia
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 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.
It should be noted that Congress has, from time to time, included language authorizing new
programmatic initiatives or amendments to the District of Columbia home rule charter in the
District’s Appropriations bill. For example, in 1995, Congress included language authorizing the
creation of public charter schools in the District of Columbia as part of P.L. 104-134, a
consolidated appropriation measure.5 In 2004, Congress included statutory provisions creating a
school voucher program as part of the District of Columbia Appropriations, which was a
component of a consolidated appropriations act, P.L. 108-199.6
The President’s FY2014 Budget Request
On April 10, 2013, the Obama Administration released its detailed budget request for FY2014.
The Administration’s proposed budget included $676.3 million in special federal payments to the
District of Columbia, which is $2.2 million more than the District’s FY2013 appropriation of
$674.1 million. Approximately 80% ($543.4 million) of the President’s proposed budget request
for the District would be targeted to the courts and criminal justice system. This includes
• $222.7 million in support of court operations;
• $49.9 million for Defender Services;7
• $227.9 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;
• $40.6 million for the public defender’s office;8 and
5 110 Stat 1321–107.
6 118 Stat. 126
7 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, investigations, and genetic testing.
8 The Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia is a federally funded, independent organization governed by
an eleven-member Board of Trustees. Created by federal statute (P.L. 91-358, D.C. Code Sec. 2-1601) , the Public
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
2
FY2014 Appropriations: District of Columbia
• $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.9
The President’s budget request also includes $87.2 million in support of education initiatives,
including $52.2 million to support elementary and secondary education, $500,000 to support the
D.C. National Guard college access program, and $35 million for college tuition assistance.
These amounts represent 12.9% of the Administration’s federal payment budget request for the
District of Columbia.
District’s FY2014 Budget
On March 28, 2013, the mayor of the District of Columbia submitted a proposed budget to the
District of Columbia Council. On May 22, 2013, the council approved an FY2014 budget that
included $12.2 billion in operating funds and $2.2 billion in capital outlays. The mayor signed the
measure (A20-0127) on July 24, 2013. Included in the act are provisions that would grant the
District greater self-governance. The act would provide some level of budget autonomy in the
expenditure of local funds and legislative autonomy. Specifically, the act would, by reference,
enact the Local Budget Autonomy Act of 2012.10 The act, if approved by Congress, would amend
the District’s home rule charter by removing language that currently subjects the District’s
general fund budget to the congressional appropriations process. Specifically, under the Local
Budget Autonomy Act, the District’s local budget would become effective if Congress failed to
enact a joint resolution of disapproval within a 30-day congressional review period. Thus the
District’s local budget would no longer require active approval by Congress.11
In addition to budget autonomy, the District’s Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Request Act of 2013
included several provisions intended to advance legislative autonomy. The act would
• eliminate the requirement that proposed amendments to the District’s home rule
charter be transmitted to Congress;
(...continued)
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.
9 This includes $295,000 to the Commission on Judicial Disabilities and Tenure and $205,000 to the Judicial
Nomination Commission.
10 D.C. Act 19-632, which would have amended the District’s Home Rule Act, subject to approval by voter
referendum.
11 This is an alternative to a provision that was included in the District’s FY2013 budget request. That proposal would
have granted 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 have allowed 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 a Senate bill, S. 3301, recommending appropriations for FY2013 as reported by the Senate
Appropriations Committee. See S. 3301, Title VIII, § 815.The provision was also supported by the Administration.
(See 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
FY2014 Appropriations: District of Columbia
• no longer subject proposed charter amendments to the 35-day congressional
review period;
• no longer subject the District’s borrowing authority to the congressional
appropriations process; and
• shorten the congressional review period (which currently allows Congress 30
legislative days to review non-criminal-code legislation passed by the District of
Columbia Council and 60 days for legislation related to criminal offenses,
procedures, and prisoners) by eliminating language that excludes Saturdays,
Sundays, holidays, and any day on which neither chamber is in session because
of an adjournment sine die, a recess of more than 3 days, or an adjournment of
more than 3 days beginning on the day the legislation is transmitted to the House
or Senate.
Congressional Action
Senate Committee Bill, S. 1371
On July 25, 2013, the Senate Appropriations Committee reported S. 1371, its version of the
Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act for FY2014, with an
accompanying report (S. Rept. 113-80). As reported, the bill recommended $676.2 million in
special federal payments to the District. This is approximately $700,000 more than appropriated
for FY2013, and $1.5 million less than requested by the Administration. The bill includes $9.4
million more in funding for court operations than requested by the Administration, but $7.4
million less than appropriated in FY2013. It would appropriate $10 million less than the
President’s FY2014 request, or $17.7 million less than the FY2013 appropriated amount for
elementary and secondary education initiatives. These funds would be allocated among three
specific initiatives: public school improvements ($30 million), support for public charter schools
($20 million), and funding a private school voucher program ($2.2 million for evaluation and
administration activities). The Senate report accompanying the bill notes that there are sufficient
unexpended funds available from pervious appropriations to meet the needs of the program.
General Provisions
The Senate committee bill’s general provisions mirror some of the language included in the
House committee bill. Like the House committee bill, S. 1371 includes provisions governing
budgetary and fiscal operations and controls. It also includes provisions restricting or prohibiting
the use of federal funds to support District statehood or congressional voting representation and
includes 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
Congressional Research Service
4
FY2014 Appropriations: District of Columbia
or civil action seeking voting representation in Congress for citizens of the
District.
The bill also includes changes in three provisions that city officials have sought to eliminate or
modify. The bill would
• continue the prohibition against the use of federal funds to provide abortion
services;
• 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.
The Senate committee bill includes provisions not included in previous District of Columbia
appropriations acts passed by Congress that would amend the District’s home rule charter. The
Senate measure would grant the city fiscal year and budget autonomy over the expenditure of
locally raised funds, an action long sought by District officials. Specifically, the Senate measure
would decouple the District’s fiscal year from the federal fiscal year and would grant the District
the authority to spend local funds if Congress has not enacted a federal appropriation authorizing
the expenditure of local funds before the start of the District’s fiscal year.
House Committee Bill, H.R. 2786
On July 17, 2013, the House Appropriations Committee approved the Financial Services and
General Government Appropriations Act of 2014, H.R.2786, with an accompanying report (H.
Rept. 113-172). The bill includes $635.8 million in special federal payments to the District. This
is $38.3 million less than appropriated for FY2013, $40.5 million less than requested by the
Obama Administration, and $39 million less than recommended by the Senate committee bill.
The bill does not include funding for the District’s Water and Sewer Authority, and includes a
substantial decrease ($20 million) in the amount that would be appropriated for the Resident
Tuition Support (college access) program. The bill also would direct $54 million in funding to
support the District of Columbia Public Schools ($18 million), public charter schools ($18
million), and private school vouchers ($18 million).
General Provisions
Like its Senate counterpart, the House committee 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 committee 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
• support or defeat any legislation being considered by Congress or a state
legislature;
Congressional Research Service
5
FY2014 Appropriations: District of Columbia
• 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 committee bill, H.R. 2786 would prohibit the use of both District and federal
funds for abortion services. 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.12 The first dispensary opened on July 29,
2013.13
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 FY2014 includes a request for $676.3
million in special federal payments for the District of Columbia. The Financial Services and
General Government Appropriations Act for FY2014, H.R. 2786, as reported by the House
Appropriations Committee on July 17, 2013, included $635.8 million in special federal payments
to the District of Columbia. One week later, on July 25, 2013, the Senate Appropriations
Committee reported its version of the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations
Act, S. 1371. The Senate committee bill recommended $674.8 million in special federal payments
for the District of Columbia.
Table 2 shows details of the District’s federal payments, including the FY2013-enacted amounts,
the amounts included in the President’s FY2014 budget request, and the amounts recommended
by the House and Senate Appropriations Committees.
12 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.
13 Ryan J. Reilly and Nick Wing, “Washington, D.C.’s First Medical Marijuana Dispensary Opens Blocks From
Capitol,” Huff Post, July 30, 2013, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/30/washington-dc-medical-marijuana-
dispensary_n_3676943.html.
Congressional Research Service
6
FY2014 Appropriations: District of Columbia
Table 2. District of Columbia Appropriations, FY2013-FY2014:
Special Federal Payments
(in millions of dollars)
FY2014
FY2014
FY2014
FY2013
FY2014
District
House
Senate
FY2014
Enacted
Request
Request
Committee
Committee
Enacted
Resident Tuition
29.940 35.000 35.000
15.000
35.000
Support
Emergency Planning
24.651 14.900 14.900
14.900
14.900
and Security
District of Columbia
232.375 222.667 222.667
232.841
232.137
Courts
Defender Services
54.890
49.890
49.890
49.890
49.890
Court Services and
Offender Supervision
212.557 227.968 227.968
225.000
227.968
Agency
Public Defender
Service
37.167 40.607 40.607
39.000
40.607
Criminal Justice
Coordinating
1.796 1.800 1.800
1.800
1.800
Council
Judicial Commissions
0.499
0.500
0.500
0.500
0.500
Water and Sewer
Authority
14.970 14.500 14.500
—
14.500
School Improvement
59.880
52.200
52.200
54.000
42.200
Public Schools
19.960
30.000
30.000
18.000
20.000
Public Charter
Schools
19.960 20.000 20.000
18.000
20.000
Education
Vouchers-linked
19.960 2.200 2.200
18.000
2.200
activities
D.C. National Guard
0.374
0.500
0.500
0.375
0.500
D.C. Comm. on Arts
and Hum.
— 1.000 1.000
—
St. Elizabeth Hospital
Campus
— 9.800 9.800
—
9.800
Redevelopment
HIV/AIDS Prevention
4.990
5.000
5.000
2.500
5.000
Special Federal
674.089 676.332 676.332
635.806
674.802
Payments (total)
Sources: FY2013 Enacted, FY2014 Request, and FY2014 committee recommendations are taken from H.Rept.
113-172 accompanying H.R. 2786, the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act for
FY2014 and S.Rept. 113-80, accompanying S. 1371, the Financial Services and General Government
Appropriations Act, FY2013. Columns may not equal the total due to rounding.
Congressional Research Service
7
FY2014 Appropriations: District of Columbia
Local Operating Budget
As noted previously, the District’s General Fund Budget for FY2014, which was signed by the
mayor on July 24, 2013, as A20-0127, was incorporated by reference in both the House and
Senate committee bills (H.R. 2786 and S. 1371) for the purpose of congressional review and
approval. The District’s FY2014 General Fund Budget totaled $12.2 billion, including $10.1
billion for operating expenses and $2.1 billion for enterprise funds (Table 3). Of the $12.2 billion
budgeted for operating expenses, $961.8 million is projected to be derived from federal grants
and $1.918 billion from Medicaid payments.
Table 3. Division of Expenses: District of Columbia Funds: FY2014
(in millions of dollars)
District
House
Senate
Final
General Fund
Gov. Dir. & Support
682.775
—
—
Econ. Dev. and Reg.
436.947
—
—
Public Safety and Justice
1,147.898
—
—
Public
Education
2,055.594 — —
Human Support Services
4,088.014
—
—
Public
Works 649.555 — —
Financing and Other
1,037.959
—
—
Gen. Oper. Exp.
10,098.742
10,98.742
10,98.742
Enterprise Funds
WASA
479.543 — —
Wash.
Aqueduct 64.592 — —
Lottery
253.000 — —
Retirement
Board 30.338 — —
Convention
Center
114.585 — —
Housing Fin. Agency
9.689
—
—
Univ.
D.C.
141.850 — —
Library
Trust
Fund
0.017
Unemploy. Ins. Trust
— —
Fund 480.000
Housing Prod. Trust
— —
Fund 142.676
Tax Increment Fin.
63.931
—
—
Basebal
Fund
86.970 — —
Repayment of PILOT
16.341
—
—
Not-for-Profit Hospital
— —
Corp.
110.000
Health
Benefit
Exchange
66.140 — —
Congressional Research Service
8
FY2014 Appropriations: District of Columbia
District
House
Senate
Final
Authority
Tot. Enterp. Fund
2,059.672
2,059.672
2,059.672
Tot. Oper. Exp.
12,158.414
12,158.414
12,158.414
Capital Outlay
Cap.
Construction
2,756.433 — —
—Rescissions 558.139
— —
Tot. Cap. Outlay
2,198,294
2,198,294
2,198,294
Source: District of Columbia Fiscal Year 2014 Budget Request Act of 2013, H.R. 2786 and S. 1371.
General Provisions: Key Policy Issues
Needle Exchange
Addressing the spread of HIV and AIDS among intravenous drug abusers is one of several key
policy issues that Congress has faced in reviewing the District’s appropriations for FY2014. 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. Congress also faces the decision of whether or not
to use federal funds to address this issue.
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 in the district. 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
9
FY2014 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, had 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 that 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 FY2014 and related House and Senate committee bills
include language that would retain language included in the FY2013 appropriations act that
allowed the use of District funds, but prohibited the use of federal funds, in support of a needle
exchange program.14
Medical Marijuana
The city’s medical marijuana initiative is another issue that has engendered 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.15 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
14 During consideration of FY2013 Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act, H.R. 6020, the
Obama Administration, in a Statement of Administration Policy issued on June 28, 2012, urged the House to remove
language prohibiting the District from using 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. (See 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.)
15 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
FY2014 Appropriations: District of Columbia
included in P.L. 106-113 (113 Stat. 1530), the District of Columbia Appropriations Act for
FY2000. Opponents of the provision contended 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 had been included in the general
provisions of each District appropriations act since 1998 prohibited it from using public funds to
do preliminary work that would have 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.16 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 states17 and the District of Columbia that have
decriminalized or permitted the use of marijuana for medical or therapeutic purposes.18
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 Congress 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 began operations on July 30, 2013.
Both the House and Senate committee bills (H.R. 2786 and S. 1371) 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.19
16 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).
17 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.
18 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.
19 For additional information on medical marijuana and federal enforcement, see CRS Report WSLG664, Obama
Administration Will Not Challenge State Marijuana Laws That Do Not Undermine Federal Enforcement Priorities, by
Brian T. Yeh, and CRS Report WRE00062, Legalization of Marijuana for Medical and Recreational Purposes, by
Todd Garvey and Brian T. Yeh.
Congressional Research Service
11
FY2014 Appropriations: District of Columbia
Abortion Services
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, were
endorsed by President Reagan, who threatened to veto the District’s appropriations act if the
abortion provision was not modified.20 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.21
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.
During the 112th Congress, two bills were considered in the House that would have banned or
restricted 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 included a
provision (Section 309) that would have permanently prohibited 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.
20 “District Policies Hit Hard in Spending Bill,” Congressional Quarterly Almanac, vol. XLIV (Washington:
Congressional Quarterly, Inc., 1988), p. 713.
21“ D.C. Bill Vetoed Twice Over Abortion Funding,” Congressional Quarterly Almanac, vol. XLV (Washington:
Congressional Quarterly, Inc., 1989), p. 757.
Congressional Research Service
12
FY2014 Appropriations: District of Columbia
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 have permanently banned
doctors and health facilities from performing abortions in the District after the 20th week of
pregnancy, except when the pregnancy would result in the woman suffering from a physical
disorder, injury, or illness that endangers her life. It would have imposed fines and imprisonment
on doctors who violated the act and would have allowed 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 have required
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 would have been required to compile such information and issue 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.22
The Obama Administration’s FY2014 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 does not include language that
would restrict the use of District funds for abortion services. S. 1371, as reported, supports the
Administration position restricting the use of federal funds. H.R. 2786, as reported, includes
language that would restrict the use of both federal and District funds for abortion services,
except in instances of rape, incest, or when the woman’s life is endangered.
District of Columbia Opportunity Scholarship Program23
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 to 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
22 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.
23 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
13
FY2014 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 FY2014 includes $30 million for DCPS, $20
million for public charter schools, and $2.2 million to carry out evaluation and administrative
activities of the program support the Opportunity Scholarship program.24 S. 1371, as reported,
would provide a total of $52.2 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: $30 million for DCPS, $20 million for public charter schools, and $2.2 million for the
Opportunity Scholarship program. H.R. 2786, as reported, would provide $54 million for a
federal payment for school improvement, with $18 million provided to each of the three prongs.
Local Budget Autonomy
In 1973, Congress granted the city limited home rule powers and empowered citizens of the
District to elect a mayor and city council. At the same time, however, Congress retained the
power to review and approve all District laws, including the District’s annual budget. Under the
District’s home rule charter, the mayor must submit operating and capital budgets to the city
council for review and adoption by a date specified by the council. The council must act on the
budget within 56 calendar days of receiving the budget from the mayor. The mayor then forwards
the approved budget to the President, who transmits it to Congress. Once forwarded to Congress,
the District’s budget moves through the congressional appropriations process. This typically
includes subcommittee hearings, which may take place before the actual budget submission to
Congress; subcommittee and committee markups in the House and the Senate; committee reports
and votes; floor action; conference report consideration; and final passage.25 All of this is
supposed to happen within approximately 120 calendar days before the beginning of the District’s
fiscal year on October 1.
District of Columbia political leaders have consistently expressed concern that Congress has
repeatedly delayed passage of the appropriations act for the District (in which Congress approves
the city’s budget) well after the start of the District’s fiscal year. The city’s elected leaders
contend that delay in Congress’s approval of its budget hinders their ability to manage the
District’s financial affairs and negatively affects the delivery of public services.
During the past 18 years, approval of the District’s annual budget has been delayed by
complications in the congressional appropriations process. Rather than being enacted on its own,
the District of Columbia appropriations act has often been folded into omnibus or consolidated
appropriations acts, and continuing resolutions. As documented in Table 4, FY1997 was the only
24 The Administration budget notes 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 2014-2015 school year.
(Office of Management and Budget, Fiscal Year 2014 Appendix, Budget of the U.S. Government, 2013, pp. 1228-1229,
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2013/assets/appendix.pdf http://www.whitehouse.gov/
sites/default/files/omb/budget/fy2014/assets/appendix.pdf.)
25 Currently, the committees of jurisdiction are the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
Subcommittee on the Federal Workforce, Postal Service, and District of Columbia; the House Committee on
Appropriations, Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government; the Senate Committee on Homeland
Security and Governmental Affairs, Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce
and the District of Columbia; and the Senate Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Financial Services and
General Government.
Congressional Research Service
14
FY2014 Appropriations: District of Columbia
year out of the past 18 years for which the D.C. appropriations act was enacted before the start of
the fiscal year (on October 1 of the prior-numbered year).
Table 4. Date of Enactment of the D.C. Appropriations Act, FY1996-FY2013
Fiscal
P.L.
Date of
Year
Number
Enactment Remarks
1996
104-134
April 26, 1996
Five general continuing resolutions and three laws targeted to D.C.
preceded this final omnibus appropriations act.
1997 104-194 September
9, The District’s initial budget request was rejected by the Financial
1996
Control Board. It was cut and revised before being submitted to the
President and the Congress. The Omnibus Consolidated
Appropriations Act for FY1997, P.L. 104-208, also contained several
provisions regarding D.C. public schools.
1998 105-100 November
19, During part of the complicated approval process, the D.C. bill was
1997
combined with two other appropriations bills. A controversial school
scholarship proposal was split off as a separate bill. Between Oct. 1 and
Nov. 19, the District was covered under successive continuing
resolutions on appropriations.
1999 105-277 October
21, D.C. was one of eight regular appropriations bills included in the
1998
Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations
Act, 1999. From Oct. 1 through Oct. 21, D.C. was covered under five
general continuing resolutions.
2000 106-113 November
29, The D.C. bill was included with four other appropriations measures in
1999
the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2000. This was the third D.C.
appropriations bill for FY2000 approved by Congress. Two previous
bills were vetoed by President Clinton.
2001 106-522 November
22, Enactment of the D.C. appropriations bill was delayed nearly one
2000
month because it was first combined with another appropriation in a
bill vetoed by President Clinton.
2002 107-96 December
21, Congressional approval of D.C. appropriations was delayed by efforts
2001
to resolve differences between the House and Senate over “general
provisions" addressing social policy and to eliminate redundant or
obsolete provisions.
2003 108-7 February
20, The 107th Congress did not complete action on D.C.’s and 10 other
2003
appropriations bills for FY2003 before it adjourned at the end of 2002.
Eight continuing resolutions froze spending by the District and federal
agencies at the FY2002 level until the 108th Congress approved the
Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003, encompassing 11
appropriations acts.
2004
108-199
January 23, 2004 The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004, including the D.C. and six
other appropriations acts, was not enacted until the second session of
the 108th Congress. Five continuing resolutions were enacted to cover
the District and affected federal agencies for the first four months of
FY2004.
2005 108-335 October
18, The D.C. Appropriations Act was enacted on its own, just a few weeks
2004
after the start of the fiscal year.
2006 109-115 November
30, D.C. appropriations were included together with five other
2005
appropriations in a consolidated appropriations act enacted two
months after the start of the fiscal year.
Congressional Research Service
15
FY2014 Appropriations: District of Columbia
Fiscal
P.L.
Date of
Year
Number
Enactment Remarks
2007 110-5 February
5,
The D.C. bill was combined with six other appropriations bills, but that
2007
consolidated bil was not enacted. Ultimately, the government
operated under continuing appropriations resolutions for the entire
fiscal year.
2008 110-161 December
26, On September 29, 2007, the President signed a continuing budget
2007
resolution, P.L. 110-92, that included a provision al owing the District
to spend local funds at a rate consistent with amounts identified in the
District’s FY2008 Proposed Budget and Financial Plan submitted to
Congress by the District of Columbia on June 7, 2007, and amended
on June 29, 2007. The Financial Services and General Government
Appropriations Act, which included the D.C. Appropriations Act, was
ultimately included in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2008,
P.L. 110-161.
2009
111-8
March 11,2009
On September 30, 2008, the President signed the Consolidated Security,
Disaster Assistance, and Continuing Appropriations Act of 2009, P.L.
110-329. The act included a provision allowing the District of
Columbia to expend local funds for programs and activities under the
heading ``District of Columbia Funds’’ at a rate consistent with
amounts identified in the District’s FY2009 Proposed Budget and
Financial Plan submitted to Congress by the District of Columbia on
June 9, 2008.
2010
111-117 December
16, On October 1, 2009, the President signed the Continuing
2009
Appropriations Resolution for FY2010, P.L. 111-68. The act included a
provision (Division B, Sec. 126) al owing the District of Columbia
government to spend locally generated funds at a rate set forth in the
budget approved by the District of Columbia on August 26, 2009.
2011
112-10
April 15, 2011
Provision was included in Department of Defense And Ful -Year
Continuing Appropriations Act, 2011, P.L. 112-10, al owing the
District of Columbia to expend local funds for programs and activities
under the heading ``District of Columbia Funds’’ at a rate consistent
with amounts identified in the District’s FY2011 Budget Request Act
(D.C. Act 18-448).
2012 112-74 December
23, On September 30, 2011, President signed a Continuing Budget
2011
Resolution, P.L. 112-34, al owing the District of Columbia to expend
local funds for programs and activities under the heading ``District of
Columbia Funds’’ at a rate consistent with amounts identified in the
District’s FY2012 Budget Request Act (D.C. Act 19-92).
2013
113-6
March 26, 2013
On September 28, 2012, because no regular FY2013 District of
Columbia appropriations bill could be enacted before October 1, 2012,
Congress included language allowing the District of Columbia to
expend local funds for programs and activities under Title IV of H.R.
6020 (112th Congress), as reported by the House Committee on
Appropriations, at the rate set forth under ‘‘District of Columbia
Funds—Summary of Expenses’ as included in the Fiscal Year 2013
Budget Request Act of 2012 (D.C. Act 19–381), as modified as of the
date of the enactment of this joint resolution.
Source: CRS.
The Senate committee version of the Financial Services and General Government Appropriations
Act for FY2014, S. 1371, consistent with language included in the Administration’s FY2014
budget documents, includes provisions that would provide the District with some level of
autonomy over locally raised revenues. Specifically, the bill would
Congressional Research Service
16
FY2014 Appropriations: District of Columbia
• permit the District to decouple its fiscal year from the federal fiscal year allowing the
District to establish when its local fiscal year would start;
• permit District officials to obligate and expend local funds upon enactment by the District
of its local annual budget; and
• grant the District the authority to spend local funds if Congress has not enacted a federal
appropriation authorizing the expenditure of local funds before the start of the District’s
fiscal year.
The House committee bill, H.R. 2786, does not include similar language.
FY2014 Funding Lapse
To mitigate the impact of congressional delays in the approval of the District’s appropriation
before the beginning of a fiscal year, Congress has routinely included language in continuing
budget resolutions allowing the District to expend local funds on programs and activities included
in its General Fund budget. Before the beginning of FY2014 fiscal year, Congress did not
approve the District of Columbia Appropriation for FY2014. As a stopgap measure, on October 2,
2013, the House considered and passed H.J.Res. 71, the District of Columbia Continuing
Appropriations Resolution, 2014, which would allow the District to use locally raised revenues to
fund District operations through December 15, 2013. The Senate has not yet taken up
consideration of the bill.
City officials have continued to press the Senate to consider the bill passed by the House,
contending that a $144 million contingency fund used to keep the city operating would soon be
exhausted, forcing the furloughing of all but essential city personnel. Mayor Vincent Gray has
asserted that the absence of a congressionally approved budget has forced the city to delay
payments to Metro and may force a delay in payments to the District’s 60 charter schools.26
Author Contact Information
Eugene Boyd
Analyst in Federalism and Economic Development
Policy
eboyd@crs.loc.gov, 7-8689
26 Executive Office of the Mayor, District of Columbia, “Citing District’s Suffering Due to Federal Shutdown, Mayor
Gray Demands Meeting with President, Congressional Leaders,” press release, October 8, 2013, http://mayor.dc.gov/
release/citing-district%E2%80%99s-suffering-due-federal-shutdown-mayor-gray-demands-meeting-president.
Congressional Research Service
17