Appropriations for FY1999: District of Columbia
Congressional research reportNov 5, 1998
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
98-213 E
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Appropriations for FY1999:
District of Columbia
Updated November 5, 1998
Nonna A. Noto
Specialist in Public Finance
Economics Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress
Appropriations are one part of a complex federal budget process that includes budget
resolutions, appropriations (regular, supplemental, and continuing) bills, rescissions, and
budget reconciliation bills. The process begins with the President’s budget request and is
bounded by the rules of the House and Senate, the Congressional Budget and Impoundment
Control Act of 1974 (as amended), the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990, and current program
authorizations. In addition, the line item veto took effect for the first time in 1997.
This report is a guide to one of the 13 regular appropriations bills that Congress passes each
year. It is designed to supplement the information provided by the House and Senate
Appropriations Subcommittees on the District of Columbia. It summarizes the current
legislative status of the bill, its scope, major issues, funding levels, and related legislative
activity. The report lists the key CRS staff relevant to the issues covered and related CRS
products.
This report is updated as soon as possible after major legislative developments, especially
following legislative action in the committees and on the floor of the House and Senate.
NOTE: A Web version of this document with
active links is available to congressional staff at
[http://www.loc.gov/crs/products/apppage.html]
Appropriations for FY1999: District of Columbia
Summary
The District of Columbia Appropriations Act, 1999, was included as Division A,
Section 101(c) of the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations Act, 1999 (H.R. 4328, P.L. 105-277), enacted October 21, 1998.
Several other sections of the Omnibus Act also contain provisions affecting the
District of Columbia. Sections 131 - 134 at the end of Division A appropriated an
additional $125 million in federal funds for the District of Columbia for the economic
development corporation, special education in the DC Public Schools, year 2000
information technology, and transportation infrastructure and economic development
projects.
The District of Columbia government and the Control Board submitted to
Congress a consensus budget for FY1999. The proposed operating budget of $5.2
billion in local funds had a surplus of $41 million. FY1999 could thus become the
third successive year with a surplus for the District. Under provisions of the District
of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Act (P.L. 104-8),
the District is to remain under the authority of the Control Board until it has had a
balanced budget for four fiscal years in a row. In addition, the District proposed $1.7
billion in capital expenditures over six years.
The House passed H.R. 4380 by a vote of 214 to 206 on August 7, after adding
several amendments on the House floor. The Administration opposed provisions in
three of those amendments and threatened a veto they were included in the final bill:
federal funding for private school scholarships, barring adoptions by couples not
related by blood or marriage, and barring the use of local funds for needle exchange
programs for illegal drug use. The first two provisions were not included in the final
Act, but the third was. The Senate Appropriations Committee marked up and
forwarded S. 2333 on July 21. Efforts in the full Senate to add a school scholarship
provision to the bill were a factor in preventing S. 2333 from ever reaching the Senate
floor for a vote.
The Congress made only a few adjustments in the District's proposed budget of
local funds. It removed the $453,000 for Advisory Neighborhood Commissions but
permitted the reprogramming funds to cover the ANCs. The Omnibus Appropriations
Act provides federal funds to pay for added local spending on charter schools, a fire
fighters pay raise, an office of citizen complaint review for the police department, and
improvements to the Washington Marina. The Omnibus Act also provides federal
funds to entities other than the District government to finance justice functions,
economic development and infrastructure efforts, and specified programs. Altogether,
the DC Appropriations Act and the offset provisions within the Omnibus Act
appropriate $619.590 million in federal funds for the District for FY1999. The DC
Appropriations Act includes 69 "general provisions" of policy affecting the operation
of the District government. These include repealing the District’s recently enacted
residency requirement for new employees, and denying the use of local funds for most
abortions or for enforcing the provision of health and other employee benefits to
unmarried domestic partners, among many other provisions.
Key Policy Staff
Area of Expertise
Name
CRS Division
Tel.
DC Education
Carol Glover
EPW
7-7353
DC Corrections
JoAnne O’Bryant
GOV
7-6819
DC Courts
Denis Steven Rutkus
GOV
7-7162
DC-Federal Fiscal Relations
Nonna A. Noto
E
7-7826
DC Financial Control Board
Nonna A. Noto
E
7-7826
DC Politics and Governance
Eugene Boyd
GOV
7-8689
Division abbreviations: E = Economics; EPW = Education and Public Welfare; GOV = Government.
Contents
Most Recent Developments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Chronology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
The District’s Financial Condition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Revitalization Act of 1997 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Changes in DC Leadership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
DC Public Schools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Budget Requests . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
No FY1998 Supplemental Appropriation Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
FY1999 Continuing Resolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
The President’s FY1999 Budget Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
The District’s Budget Request . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Key Policy Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
House-passed Bill, H.R. 4380 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Senate Appropriations Committee Bill, S. 2333
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999,
P.L. 4328, P.L. 105-277 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Major Funding Trends: Federal Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Impact of the Revitalization Act . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
302(b) Suballocation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Major Funding Trends: District of Columbia Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
The Federal Contribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Proposal to End Congressional Appropriation of DC Local Funds . . . . . . 41
For Additional Reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
CRS Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Other References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
List of Tables
Table 1. Status of District of Columbia Appropriations, FY1999
(H.R. 4380, S. 2333, H.R. 4328, P.L. 105-277) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Table 2. District of Columbia Appropriations, FY1993 to FY1997 . . . . . . . . . 28
Table 3. District of Columbia Appropriations, Federal Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Table 4. District of Columbia Appropriations, District of Columbia Funds . . . 38
Appropriations for FY1999:
District of Columbia
Most Recent Developments
The District of Columbia Appropriations Act, 1999, was included as Division A,
Section 101(c) of the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations Act, 1999 (H.R. 4328, P.L. 105-277), enacted October 21, 1998. It
was one of the eight regular appropriations bills placed in the Omnibus Act. The DC
Appropriations Act appropriated $495 million in federal funds for the District and
$6.8 billion of the District’s own local funds ($5.1 billion operating and $1.7 billion
capital expenses). In addition, sections 131-134 of Division A appropriated another
$125 million in federal funds for the District for designated purposes, as the result of
an “offsets” agreement between the Administration and congressional leadership
included in the conference agreement on the Omnibus bill.
Status
Table 1. Status of District of Columbia Appropriations, FY1999
(H.R. 4380, S. 2333, H.R. 4328, P.L. 105-277)
Committee
Markup
Conference Report
Approval
House Senate
Subcom. Full
Com.
House
Report
House
Passage
of H.R.
4380
Senate
Report
Senate
Passage
Conference
Report on
H.R. 4328
House
Senate
Public Law
7/24/98 7/21/98
8/3/98
H.Rept.
105-670
8/7/98* 7/21/98
214 yea S.Rept.
206 nay 105-254
no vote
held on
S. 2333
10/19/98
H.Rept.
105-825
10/20/98
333 yea
95 nay
10/21/98
65 yea
29 nay
10/21/98
P.L.
105-277
* Legislative day of August 6. The House passed the bill after midnight, thus on calendar day August 7.
Chronology
President Clinton submitted his proposals for $486 million in federal funding for
the District of Columbia as part of his FY1999 U.S. Budget request released February
3, 1998. The District of Columbia government (the Mayor and Council) and the
Control Board submitted a consensus FY1999 budget request to Congress on June
1, 1998. This was two weeks ahead of the statutory deadline of June 15th set forth
CRS-2
in P.L. 104-8.1 The DC budget request covering the operating expenditure of $5.2
billion in local funds had a surplus of $41 million.
The Senate District of Columbia Appropriations Subcommittee held a hearing
on the District’s FY1999 budget request on June 10, 1998. The House DC
Appropriations Subcommittee held hearings on June 18 and 24.
The Senate subcommittee polled its members on its version of the FY1999 DC
appropriations bill on July 20. The full Senate Appropriations Committee marked up
and forwarded S. 2333 on July 21. This is the second year in a row that the Senate
did not hold a vote on its own DC appropriations bill. Efforts to attach a school
scholarship provision to S. 2333 was one factor that delayed the bill from coming to
the Senate floor in 1998.
The House DC Appropriations Subcommittee marked up its version of the
FY1999 DC appropriations bill July 24. The full House Appropriations Committee
marked up and forwarded H.R. 4380 on July 30. The House passed H.R. 4380 on
in the early morning hours of Friday, August 7 (legislative day, August 6 ), just
before the August congressional recess, by a vote of 214 to 206. Several amendments
were approved on the House floor. The Clinton Administration expressed serious
objection to provisions in three of those amendments, threatening to any final bill
including them: federal funding for private school scholarships, barring adoptions by
couples not related by marriage or blood, and barring the use of local funds for needle
exchange programs for illegal drugs. The first two provisions were not included in
the final bill enacted, but the third was.
From October 1 through October 21, 1998, funding for the District was covered
under the five consecutive continuing resolutions that were adopted as interim funding
measures until all 13 fiscal year 1999 appropriations bills were enacted. The District
of Columbia bill was included as Division A, Section 101(c) of the Omnibus
Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999 (H.R. 4328,
P.L. 105-277), enacted October 21, 1998. The District bill was one of the eight
regular appropriations bills placed in Division A, section 101 of the Omnibus Act.
In addition, sections 131-134 at the end of Division A appropriated another $125
million in federal funds for the District for four designated purposes. This was part
of an “offsets” agreement between the Clinton Administration and congressional
leadership included in the conference agreement on the Omnibus bill. The offsets
involved converting the private assets held by certain DC pension funds into U.S.
Treasury securities (section 130 of Division A), and using the estimated $4.2 billion
in revenue proceeds from the asset sales to finance a variety of programs during
FY1999, including the $125 million for the District of Columbia.
1
P.L. 104-8 is the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance
( DCFRMA) Act of 1995, enacted April 17, 1995. It created the DC Control Board, formally
know as the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance
Authority or “the Authority.”
CRS-3
Background
The District’s Financial Condition
Attaining a balanced budget or surplus is critical to the District government’s
effort to regain independence over its budget from the DC Control Board. Under
provisions of the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management
Assistance (DCFRMA) Act (P.L. 104-8), the District is to remain under the power
of the Control Board until it has had a balanced budget for four fiscal years in a row.
FY1999 could become the third successive year with a surplus.
The District achieved an unexpected budget surplus for FY1997 and exceeded
the Congress’s request for deficit reduction in FY1998. The District had recorded
deficits for the three prior fiscal years 1994-96: $335.4 million in 1994, $54.4 million
in 1995, and $33.6 million in 1996. The FY1997 DC appropriations act (P.L. 104194) approved a deficit of $74 million. Instead, the District of Columbia was pleased
to report to Congress in February 19982 that it had ended FY1997 with a budget
surplus of $185.9 million.3 For FY1998, the District’s projected budget surplus as
of July 31, 1998 was $274 million.4 The FY1998 DC appropriations act (P.L. 105100) had instructed the District to reduce its accumulated deficit by $160 million.5
The District’s accumulated general fund deficit had reached $518 million at the
end of FY1996 (September 30, 1996). Thanks to the surplus for FY1997, the
accumulated deficit fell to $332 million at the end of FY1997, instead of rising to
$527 million as had been expected during last year’s appropriations process. The
expected surplus for FY1998 could nearly eliminate the accumulated deficit.
During fiscal year 1998, the District was able to cover its short-term cash needs
by borrowing from the private financial market. (During fiscal years 1995, 1996, and
1997, the District had to ask the U.S. Treasury for cash advances, repayable at the
2
U.S. Congress. House of Representatives. Committee on Government Reform and
Oversight. Subcommittee on the District of Columbia. Fiscal Year 1997 District of
Columbia Audit Report and CFO Oversight. Hearing, 105th Cong., 2d Sess., Feb. 11, 1998.
Serial No. 105-126. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1998.
3
District of Columbia. Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR), Year Ended
September 30, 1997. Washington, February 6, 1998. p. 7, 13; exhibit 3, p. 23; and exhibit
S-1, p. 97. It is noteworthy that the financial statements received an “unqualified” or
unconditional opinion from the auditors, KPMG, Peat Marwick. The District had received
a “qualified” or conditional opinion on its FY1996 audit.
4
The estimated surplus reported at the appropriations subcommittee hearings in June 1998
was $254 million.
5
The FY1998 DC appropriation act (P.L. 105-100) directed that $160 million of the one-time
net benefit of $201 million realized by the District as the result of the Revitalization Act be
used to reduce the accumulated deficit. Explanatory Statement of the Senate Committee on
Appropriations (to accompany H.R. 2607, making appropriations for the District of Columbia
for fiscal year 1998). Congressional Record, Daily Ed., v. 143, no. 160 — Part II, Nov. 13,
1997, p. S12659.
CRS-4
beginning of the next fiscal year.) Furthermore, during FY1998 the District did not
need to undertake the $110 million in intermediate-term borrowing it had planned to
cover the accumulated deficit.
District officials warn that the surplus is fragile. Future surpluses depend on the
growth of revenues outpacing the growth of expenditures. The District continues to
lose population and employment, while the surrounding suburbs grow. Under federal
law, the District is not permitted to tax the income earned in the city by commuters
(nonresidents), who account for about two-thirds of the income earned in the District.
For FY1997 and FY1998 District revenue collections exceeded projections,
thanks to a robust economy and improved tax administration. Other one-time factors
contributed to those surpluses.
Achieving the surplus for FY1997 was explained as follows. Of the $259.9
million swing (from the projected deficit of $74.0 million to the actual surplus of
$185.9 million), $110.9 million or 43% was attributed to revenues in excess of
projections. Another $53.9 million or 21% was attributed to savings from Medicaid
cost adjustments and $53.6 million or 21% to a leaseback sale of the correctional
treatment facility, both considered one-time events. Only $41.5 million or 16% was
attributed to a reduction in expenditures, some of which resulted from the District’s
failure to spend because of poor procurement practices.6
In FY1998, revenues were expected to be $180 million more than budgeted.7
Also in FY1998, the District received a federal contribution to the nation’s capital of
$190 million. There will be no unrestricted federal contribution in FY1999, and
possibly none in future years. These two “one-time” items contributed $370 million
in revenues, covering more than the July 1998 projected surplus of $274 million for
FY1998.
In addition, the District has deferred capital expenditures in recent years — as
part of the effort to balance its budget and because of its inability to borrow from the
private capital markets. This has created a large “infrastructure deficit” or backlog
of needed capital expenditures.
Revitalization Act of 1997
Last year, consideration of the DC appropriations bill was delayed through July
1997 while the Congress worked on major authorizing legislation affecting the
District, the National Capital Revitalization and Self-government Improvement Act
6
Handout accompanying the release of the District of Columbia’s 1997 Comprehensive
Annual Financial Report (CAFR). Summarized in: Vise, David A. D.C. Reports $185.9
Million Budget Surplus. Washington Post, February 10, 1998, p. B1, B7.
7
District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority.
Statement of the Chairman, Dr. Andrew F. Brimmer. Newsrelease on the day the Control
Board was about to consider the District’s Financial Plan and Budget for Fiscal Year 1999.
Washington, May 28, 1998. p. 6, Revenues.
CRS-5
of 1997 (the Revitalization Act).8 The Revitalization Act made substantial changes
in the financial relationship between the federal government and the District of
Columbia and in management of the DC government.
Financial changes. The financial changes first affected the DC appropriation
for FY1998. The federal government’s cash contributions to the District’s budget
were substantially reduced. In exchange, financial responsibility for several
governmental functions was transferred from the District’s budget to the federal
government. (These changes are further explained in the section below on Major
Funding Trends: Federal Funds.)
Briefly, the Revitalization Act eliminated the annual federal payment to the
District, which had been $660 million from FY1995 through FY1997. Instead, the
Act authorized a smaller federal contribution of $190 million for FY1998 only and
authorized in concept payments to help finance management reforms. Also under the
Act, beginning in FY1998, the federal government took over from the District
financial responsibility for three justice functions: courts, corrections, and offender
services. The federal government took over responsibility for funding the operations
of the DC courts beginning in FY1998 and is to begin funding capital improvements
for the courts in FY1999.
These justice functions were removed from the District’s budget of local funds.
The federal funds appropriated for these functions are paid to entities other than the
District government (or the Control Board acting as the District’s agent). Federal
funding for the DC courts is paid to the Joint Committee on Judicial Administration
in the District of Columbia, an entity of the DC courts, separate from the DC
government.9 Two temporary trustee positions were created to serve as a conduit for
federal funding during the transition to full federal responsibility of the other two
functions. The DC Corrections Trustee (currently John L. Clark) received the federal
payment both for operations and for the construction and repair of correctional
facilities for FY1998. For FY1999 and beyond, funding for new prison construction
is to be requested by and made directly to the Federal Prison System.10 The Offender
Supervision and Court Services Trustee11 (currently John Carver III) will receive the
federal funding for the DC Offender Supervision, Defender, and Court Services
8
The National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997. Title
XI of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, P.L. 105-33. Tax incentives for the District were
included in Title VII of the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 (P.L. 105-34).
9
The Joint Committee on Judicial Administration was named as the conduit in the FY1998 DC
Appropriations Act, P.L. 105-100. The Revitalization Act had named the State Justice
Institute as the pass-through funding agency for the courts.
10
The Revitalization Act requires that over the next several years, the adult felon population
of DC be transferred to the Federal Prison System, including the use of contracted private
prison facilities, and that the Lorton, Virginia, Correctional Complex be closed. See CRS
Report 98-109. District of Columbia Department of Corrections: Transfer of Functions to
the Federal Government, by JoAnne O’Bryant.
11
Short name for the Pretrial Services, Defense Services, Parole, Adult Probation and
Offender Supervision Trustee.
CRS-6
Agency (a new federal agency) until that agency begins operation sometime between
August 5, 1998, and August 5, 2000.12
The Revitalization Act also ended the annual federal contribution to certain
District of Columbia retirement funds. In exchange, the federal government assumed
the unfunded pension liability for judges, police and firefighters, and teachers. The
federal government received most of the assets in the DC pension funds, which wre
expected to cover the pension liabilities until about FY2006.13 In addition, the Act
increased the federal share of DC Medicaid expenditures from 50% to 70%.14
Management changes. Subtitle B of the Revitalization Act, the District of
Columbia Management Reform Act of 1997, ordered a major temporary restructuring
of responsibility in the DC government. It transferred the final authority to appoint
and dismiss heads of 9 major DC departments from the Mayor to the Control Board.
It directed the Control Board, with the assistance of consultants, to establish
management reform plans for these 9 departments and 4 citywide functions.15
Representatives of the Control Board, the mayor’s office, the city council, and
affected departments were directed to form management reform teams to review and
implement reforms of targeted departments.
The FY1998 DC Appropriations Act (P.L. 105-100) provided $8 million in
federal dollars to help pay for the management reform efforts, to remain available for
2 fiscal years. This money was used hire the management consultants. The
consultants’ recommendations have been received, but most remain to be
implemented. This appropriation for management reform also funded the position of
a chief management officer (CMO) hired to oversee the responsibilities assigned to
the Control Board by the Management Reform Act. On January 15, 1998, the
Control Board appointed Dr. Camille Cates Barnett to the position of CMO for a 5year term.
In addition, the contract signed on April 21, 1998, with the new chief of the
Metropolitan Police Department, Charles H. Ramsey (former deputy police
12
See FY1999 U.S. Budget Appendix, p. 1063.
13
Under Division A, section 130, of P.L. 105-277, the FY1999 Omnibus Appropriations Act,
these private assets are to be sold and converted into U.S. Treasury securities. The resulting
cash proceeds to the Treasury from this assets sale are to be spent in FY1999 for a variety of
programs, under an “offsets” agreement reached between the Clinton Administration and
congressional leadership and included in the conference agreement on the Omnibus Act. The
federal government will assume responsibility for paying the pensions out of future-year
federal revenues.
14
The Medicaid provisions were included in Title IV, Subtitle H, Section 4725(b) of P.L. 10533.
15
The nine departments are: 1) Administrative Services; 2) Consumer and Regulatory Affairs;
3) Corrections; 4) Employment Services; 5) Fire and Emergency Medical Services; 6)
Housing and Community Development; 7) Human Services; 8) Public Works; 9) Public
Health. The four citywide functions are 1) asset management; 2) information resources
management; 3) personnel; and 4) procurement.
CRS-7
superintendent in Chicago), required that the police chief report to the Control Board
rather than the Mayor. A technical amendment was made to the conference
agreement on the emergency supplemental appropriations act for fiscal year 1998
(section 10007 of the general provisions of P.L. 105-174) to clarify that the terms of
the contract were valid.16
Changes in DC Leadership
On May 21, 1998, DC Mayor Marion Barry announced his intention not to seek
re-election to a fifth term. Three members of the DC Council (Harold Brazil, Kevin
Chavous, and Jack Evans) and a private businessman (Jeffrey Gildenhorn) had
previously announced their intention to seek the Democratic nomination. On June 8,
Anthony Williams resigned as chief financial officer (CFO) for the District in order to
run for the Democratic nomination. Mr. Williams won the Democratic nomination
in the September 15, 1998 primary election, and won the city-wide election on
November 4. The Republican candidate was Carol Schwartz, a member of the DC
Council who had twice previously run for mayor. There were several other mayoral
candidates.
The three-year terms of the original 5 members of the DC Control Board all
expired as of June 6, 1998.17 President Clinton extended for 90 days the terms of
three members: Chairman Andrew F. Brimmer, Constance B. Newman, and Stephen
D. Harlan. (Joyce A. Ladner and Edward A. Singletary stepped down.) This
temporary extension provided coverage from experienced members as the FY1999
DC budget proposal was going to Congress and gave the President extra time to
select new board members. In mid-June the President appointed as a new member of
the board, for a term of 3 years, Robert P. Watkins III, a former federal prosecutor,
now a private attorney. The President also appointed as a new member for a term of
3 years Dr. Alice M. Rivlin, vice chairman of the Federal Reserve Board. Dr. Rivlin
became chair of the Control Board on September 1, 1998. On July 29, Constance
Newman agreed to stay on for a 1-year term, become vice chair, and oversee the
public schools. On August 4, President Clinton announced his intention to appoint,
for two-year terms beginning September 1, Eugene Kinlow, a member of the regional
Metro authority, former long-time member of the DC school board, and active
participant in Anacostia community projects, and Darius Mans, an economist with the
World Bank. The new board was in place by September 1, 1998.
Franklin Raines, architect of the Administration’s 1997 Revitalization Plan for
the District, stepped down as director of the U.S. Office of Management and Budget
on May 20, 1998.
16
Faircloth, Lauch. District of Columbia Police Chief. Remarks in the Senate.
Congressional Record, Daily Edition, vol. 144, no. 51, April 30, 1998. p. S3909.
17
Under provisions of P.L. 104-8, section 101(b)(5)(B), the appointments for the term
following the initial term will be of staggered length: 1 for 1 year, 2 for 2 years, and 2 for 3
years, so that the five members’ terms will not again expire all at the same time.
CRS-8
DC Public Schools
Serious problems faced the DC public schools (DCPS) during FY1998. The
schools opened three weeks late in September 1997 because of court-ordered safety
requirements related to repairs of heating and cooling systems and the replacement
of more than 50 school building roofs. The person in charge of school maintenance
and repairs, Charles E. Williams, resigned in February 1998. The Army Corps of
Engineers began providing technical support to help implement the capital
improvement program for the public schools. In early April 1998 it was disclosed that
the DC public schools projected $62 million in overspending for FY1998 on personnel
and other items. The former chief executive for the schools, General Julius W.
Becton, Jr., resigned at the end of April 1998. His replacement is Arlene Ackerman,
former deputy superintendent for the Seattle public schools. From August 1997 until
April 1998 Ms. Ackerman served as Chief Academic Officer and Deputy
Superintendent of the DC public schools. In her first four months in office, Ms.
Ackerman fired a large number of DCPS employees for poor performance of their
jobs. District schools did open on time in September 1998, for the first time in four
years. Ms. Ackerman has addressed problems with the physical plant, as well as
record-keeping for payroll, enrollment, and whether students are DC residents.
Criticisms continue about the quality of educational services provided to students.
In addition to its responsibilities for reforming city government functions, the DC
Control Board now bears more direct responsibility for accomplishing reforms in the
DC public schools. In a January 6, 1998 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled
that the control board does not have the power to delegate responsibility for the
school system to the DC Emergency Transitional Education Board of Trustees. The
trustees can only serve as advisers to the Control Board.18 In late October 1998,
under its new chair, Dr. Rivlin, the Control Board began to return some
responsibilities — for oversight of discipline and school facilities — from the Control
Board to the elected school board.
The FY1998 DC appropriation act included several substantive provisions to
encourage the establishment of public charter schools in the District.19 Charter
schools are public schools supported by the DC budget, but they are permitted to
operate independently of the central school administration. They receive a separate
appropriation from the public schools. Three charter schools were in operation in the
District of Columbia during the 1997-98 school year. Fifteen are operating in 199899, with enrollment of 3,653, about 5% of the estimated 1997-98 DC public school
enrollment of 77,111. Supporters sought another $20 million in funding for charter
18
On November 15, 1996, the control board appointed a DC emergency Transitional
Education Board of Trustees to oversee the operation of the city’s schools until June 30, 2000.
The superintendent of schools, Franklin L. Smith, was fired, and General Julius W. Becton,
Jr. was appointed chief executive officer and superintendent of schools, reporting to the
emergency board. The elected school board was relegated to an advisory capacity until June
30, 2000, when it is to resume management of the school system.
19
Public charter schools for the District of Columbia were initially authorized by the District
of Columbia School Reform Act of 1995, Title II of the FY1996 DC Appropriations Act,
contained within P.L. 104-134.
CRS-9
schools for FY1999, in addition to the $12 million requested by the District. The
DCPS and Control Board are concerned about reducing the high costs currently
associated with court-ordered provision of special education for children with
disabilities.
A proposal for a limited public-private school scholarship or voucher program
was included in the initial House-passed version of the FY1998 DC appropriations bill
(H.R. 2607), but was not included in the final act (P.L. 105-100).20 Instead, the
Senate passed the authorizing provisions for the scholarship provision as a separate
bill, S. 1502, on November 9, 1997, the same day that it passed the appropriations
bill. The House took up the measure in the second session of the 105th Congress.
The House approved S. 1502 on April 30, 1998, by a vote of 214 to 206, 1 present.
As he had previously warned, President Clinton vetoed the scholarship bill on May 20,
1998.
For FY1999, a school scholarship provision was included as Title II of H.R.
4380, the FY1999 DC appropriations bill passed by the House. Efforts to attach a
school scholarship provision to the bill approved by the Senate Appropriations
Committee interfered with S. 2333 ever coming to a vote on the Senate floor. There
is no school scholarship provision in the final FY1999 DC Appropriations Act, H.R.
4328, P.L. 105-277.
Budget Requests
No FY1998 Supplemental Appropriation Request
No additional funding for the District of Columbia was requested by the
President or included in the emergency supplemental appropriations act for fiscal year
1998 (H.R. 3579, P.L. 105-174).
FY1999 Continuing Resolution
From October 1 through October 21, 1998, funding for the District of
Columbia was covered under the six consecutive continuing resolutions (CR) adopted
as interim funding measures until the fiscal year 1999 appropriations were enacted.21
The CRs continued funding for FY1998 activities, generally at the FY1998 spending
20
For further information on the scholarship provisions, see CRS Report 95-344. Federal
Support of School Choice: Background and Options, by Wayne C. Riddle and James B.
Stedman.
21
The six continuing resolutions and the time period covered were: H.J. Res. 128, P.L. 105240, October 1 through midnight October 9, 1998; H.J. Res. 133, P.L. 105-249, Oct. 10-12;
H.J. Res. 134, P.L. 105-254, Oct. 13-14; H.J. Res. 135, P.L. 105-257, Oct. 15-16; H.J. Res.
136, P.L. 105-260, Oct. 17-20; and H.J. Res. 137, P.L. 105-273, Oct. 21. For further
information on the CR, see CRS Report 98-800, FY1999 Continuing Resolution, by Sandy
Streeter, Coordinator.
CRS-10
levels. Section 114 of the CR (H.J. Res. 128, P.L. 105-240) specifically provided
funding for selected District of Columbia accounts financed by federal funds at the
FY1998 level, multiplied by the ratio of the number of days covered by the CR (9)
divided by 365. The accounts enumerated are: Corrections Trustee Operations,
Offender Supervision, Public Defender Services, Parole Revocation, Adult Probation,
and Court Operations.
Expenditures of the District’s own local funds and of federal funds not listed in
section 114 were governed by the general rules laid out for all of the regular
appropriations bills covered by the CR. Thus, for functions where a higher level of
spending has been requested for FY1999, the District could continue to spend at the
FY1998 level. For functions where a lower level of spending has been requested for
FY1999, the District could spend at a level not exceeding the greater of the rate that
would be provided by the budget request or by the appropriations act passed by the
House (or by the Senate, if passed by October 1).22 For functions where no funding
was provided in the House bill, as for Advisory Neighborhood Commissions, the
District could continued to spend at the lesser of the FY1999 budget request or the
level appropriated for FY1998. New programs proposed to begin in FY1999 could
not be funded at all.
The President’s FY1999 Budget Request
The White House released an outline of the President’s FY1999 budget
proposals for the District of Columbia on January 29, 1998.23 Some of the proposals
that are outside the jurisdiction of the DC appropriations bill are mentioned briefly at
the end of this section. The proposals included under the DC appropriations bill are
shown in column 2 of Table 3, District of Columbia Appropriations, Federal Funds.24
The 1997 Revitalization Act required the federal government to finance the
operations of the DC courts beginning in FY1998, and capital improvements
beginning in FY1999. For FY1999, the President proposed a total of $142 million for
the DC courts: $121 million for operating expenses, and, for the first time, an
additional $21 million for capital improvements for courthouse facilities, to remain
available until September 30, 2001. In a separate request, the District courts
requested $148 million: $133 million for operations and $15 million for capital
improvements.25 That is, the courts requested less than the President for capital
22
As of Oct. 1, 1998, the House had passed its D.C. appropriations bill, H.R. 4380, but the
Senate had not passed S. 2333.
23
U.S. Executive Office of the President. Office of Management and Budget. Summary
Sheet for FY1999 District Budget Announcement. Washington, January 29, 1998.
24
Details of the President’s proposal for the District may be found in: U.S. Executive Office
of the President. Office of Management and Budget. Budget of the United States Government,
Fiscal Year 1999. Appendix. Transmitted to Congress February 2, 1998. Washington, U.S. Govt.
Print. Off., 1998. pp. 1048-63.
25
FY1999 U.S. Budget Appendix, p. 1048. Under provisions of the Revitalization Act, the
annual federal budget is to include the expenditure estimates for the DC courts made by the
(continued...)
CRS-11
improvements, but considerably more for operations. For FY1998, $5 million for
judges’ pensions was included in the $108 million appropriation for the operation of
the DC courts. For FY1999, there was no appropriation request for pensions;
instead, the federal contribution for judges’ pensions is to be covered by pension fund
assets that were transferred to the federal government.26
The President requested $184.8 million for the DC Corrections Trustee, for
operations (compared with $169 million enacted for FY1998).
Beginning in FY1999, funding for prison construction is no longer included in
the appropriation for the District of Columbia or the Corrections Trustee. Instead,
under provisions of the Revitalization Act, funding for further new prison
construction is to be requested directly by the Federal Prison System and
consequently included in the appropriation request for the Department of Justice.27
For FY1999, the President requested $300 million to construct and renovate facilities
related to the transfer of the District’s sentenced felon population to the federal
Bureau of Prisons.28 (For FY1998, $302 million were appropriated to the DC
Corrections Trustee for construction, of which $294.9 million were available for
transfer to the Federal Prison System, and up to $7.1 million for repairs to the Lorton,
Virginia correctional facility. The $7.1 million remains available for repairs to Lorton
until those facilities are closed.29)
For offender services, the President requested $59.4 million for FY1999,
compared with $43.0 million appropriated for FY1998. The $59.4 million includes
$33.802 million for parole revocation, adult probation and offender supervision;
$14.486 million for public defender services; and $11.112 million for the pretrial
services agency. No separate allocation was proposed for the U.S. parole
commission.
The President did not request either a federal payment for management reform
or a federal contribution to the operating costs of the nation’s capital for FY1999.
In their stead, the President requested $100 million to support DC economic
development initiatives. This included $50 million to capitalize a National Capital
Revitalization Corporation; $25 million for Metro station improvements related to the
proposed Washington Convention Center; and $25 million for the District government
to fund management reforms to improve the city’s economic development
infrastructure.
25
(...continued)
Joint Committee on Judicial Administration (to which the federal money is paid), in addition
to the President’s recommended funding for the courts.
26
See note b to Table 3.
27
FY1999 U.S. Budget Appendix, p. 1050.
28
FY1999 U.S. Budget Appendix, p. 615.
29
FY1999 U.S. Budget Appendix, p. 1050.
CRS-12
President Clinton had proposed an economic development corporation for the
District in his January 14, 1997 National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government
Improvement Plan for the District.30 However, this proposal was not adopted by the
Congress in 1997. On May 5, 1998, the DC Council enacted legislation authorizing
an economic development corporation for the District, the National Capital
Revitalization Corporation Act of 1998, D.C. Act 12-355. The entity created by this
legislation could receive the economic development funding proposed by the
President without further congressional authorization.
For FY1999, the President did not propose any further federal payment for the
Medicare coordinated care demonstration project or payment to the National Park
Service for U.S. Park Police services to the District that were included in the FY1998
budget.
In addition to the payments for prison construction mentioned above, three other
components of the President’s January 29, 1998 outline for the District in FY1999
would not be included under the DC appropriations bill. One is a new $20 million
U.S. Department of Education initiative to help the District implement reforms to
improve student achievement, including expanding summer school, training teachers
and principals, and placing reading specialists in each of the 156 public schools.31 The
other two are ongoing federal programs that, for purposes of this presidential
announcement, are counted as federal aid to the District. This includes $1.5 billion
in federal money supporting various cultural and historic institutions located in the
District, including the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, the National Gallery
of Art, and the Smithsonian Institution museums. Finally, the summary sheet notes
the $1.4 billion that the District is expected to receive as its share of federal grant
programs available to state and local governments nationwide, such as Medicaid, the
National School Lunch Program, and Department of Labor job training assistance
grants.
OMB estimated that the FY1999 savings to the District’s operating budget from
the implementation of the Revitalization Act was $147 million, out of an estimated 5year savings of $1.1 billion.32 (The comparable estimated savings for FY1998 were
30
For further detail, see CRS Report 97-498. District of Columbia Revitalization: A
Preliminary Review of the President’s Plan, by Eugene Boyd, Coordinator.
31
The initiative, Summer STARS (Students and Teachers Achieving Results and Success),
received a grant in FY1998 of $5 million from the federal Fund for the Improvement of
Education. The grant is helping to fund an expanded summer school program in 1998. The
Stanford 9 assessment test was to be given at the beginning and end of the 1997-98 school
year to all students in grades 1 through 11. Students scoring below basic on the Stanford-9
reading and mathematics achievement tests were required to attend summer school. An
estimated 20,000 students at a cost of $7 million were to be enrolled summer school for 1998.
Actual enrollment reached 24,500, or 4,500 more than planned. The widespread student
testing and mandatory summer school are part of a systemwide plan to raise academic
standards and end social promotion. The President’s proposal would institute a new federal
Department of Education program to continue funding this effort at $20 million in FY1999.
32
U.S. Executive Office of the President. Office of Management and Budget. Summary
(continued...)
CRS-13
about $236 million, $35 million of which were appropriated for increased
expenditures for public safety and justice, leaving $201 million in net savings.)
The District’s Budget Request
The District of Columbia government (the Mayor and Council) and the Control
Board overseeing the District submitted a single consensus FY1999 budget request
of $5.2 billion to the President and the Congress on June 1, 1998. This was two
weeks ahead of the statutory deadline of June 15th set forth in P.L. 104-8.33
In June 1997, the DC government and the Control Board initially submitted two
separate FY1998 budget requests to the Congress. They were unable to reach an
agreement under the formal reject-and-revise sequence of budget approval laid out
in P.L. 104-8. To alleviate this impasse, the National Capital Revitalization and SelfGovernment Improvement Act of 1997 (the Revitalization Act, P.L. 105-33)34
permitted the District government and the Control Board to use a consensus approach
to develop the District’s budget. Using this new procedure, the District’s Mayor,
Council, and Control Board were able to reach an agreement on their FY1999 budget
proposal during May 1998.
The operating expense budget proposed by the District included total revenues
of $5.231 billion and total expenditures of $5.189 billion, for a surplus of $41 million.
If achieved, this could mark the third year in a row that the District attained a surplus.
(Under the terms of the DCFRMA Act (P.L. 104-8), the Control Board is to remain
in power until the District has balanced its budget for four sequential fiscal years.35)
In addition to the budget for operating expenditures, the District presented a sixyear capital improvement plan (FY1999-2004) for $1.7 billion. The District requested
$254 million in federal funding for the Nation’s Capital Infrastructure Fund in
FY1999, but this was not included in the President’s budget request.
32
(...continued)
Sheet for FY1999 District Budget Announcement. Washington, January 29, 1998. p. 2.
33
The District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance ( DCFRMA)
Act of 1995 (P.L. 104-8), enacted April 17, 1995. The formal name of the DC Control Board
is the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority,
or “the Authority.”
34
The National Capital Revitalization and Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997. Title
XI of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, P.L. 105-33.
35
U.S. Congress. House. Hearings on the Fiscal Year 1999 Operating Budget and Financial
Plan for the District of Columbia, June 18, 1998. Statement of Dr. Andrew F. Brimmer,
Chairman, District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance
Authority. Not yet published.
CRS-14
Key Policy Issues
The final FY1999 DC Appropriations Act combines elements from the Housepassed and Senate Appropriations Committee bills, as well as elements introduced for
the first time in the conference agreement on the Omnibus appropriations bill. In the
following discussion comparing the House-passed bill (H.R. 4380) with the Senate
Appropriation Committee bill (S. 2333), it will be noted whether the proposal was
included in the final FY1999 DC Appropriations Act enacted as part of the Omnibus
Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999 (H.R. 4328,
P.L. 105-277).
Each discussion is organized to correspond to the three traditional components
of the DC appropriations bill:
! the appropriation of federal funds on behalf of the District (see Table 3 in the
section on Major Funding Trends: Federal Funds);
! the appropriation of the District’s expenditures from it own local funds (see
Table 4 in the section on Major Funding Trends: District of Columbia Funds);
and
! general provisions that set Congress’s policies for the operation of the
District’s government.36
In brief, in the case of federal funds, with only a few exceptions the final Act
included both what the House approved and the Senate committee proposed. Neither
the House, nor Senate committee, nor final DC appropriations bill adopted the
President’s full proposal for federal spending on economic development efforts in the
District. Instead, important parts of the President’s economic development proposal
were restored by the offsets package that the Administration introduced into the
conference agreement on the Omnibus Appropriations Act. This included $25 million
for the DC National Capital Revitalization Corporation and $50 million for
transportation infrastructure and other economic development projects and planning.
A federally funded school scholarship provision was included as Title II of the
bill passed by the House. Efforts to attach a school scholarship provision to the bill
approved by the Senate Appropriations Committee interfered with S. 2333 ever
coming to a vote on the Senate floor. There is no school scholarship provision in the
final FY1999 DC Appropriations Act.
In the case of local funds, the Senate Appropriations Committee approved the
District’s proposed FY1999 budget. The House removed the funding for Advisory
Neighborhood Commissions (ANCs), but added federal funding for several projects
to be included in the District’s budget. The final Act followed the House’s treatment
of DC local funds.
36
Policy provisions are sometimes included in the sections appropriating federal or local funds,
and not just in the general provisions section of the bill.
CRS-15
There were numerous differences between the House-passed and Senate
committee bills in the policy provisions included for the District government.37 The
final Act included all of the provisions that appeared in both the House and Senate
committee bills. It included most of the provisions that appeared in one bill but not
the other, but not all of those provisions. Finally, it included some provisions that first
appeared in the conference agreement. There are 69 “general provisions” of policy
in the final FY1999 DC Appropriations Act. There were 54 in the House bill and 57
in the Senate committee bill.
The Clinton Administration expressed serious objection to three provisions
included in the House (but not the Senate committee) bill and threatened to veto any
final bill including them: federal funding for private school scholarships, barring
adoptions by unmarried couples, and barring the use of local funds for needle
exchange programs for illegal drugs. The first two provisions were not included in
the final bill enacted, but the third was.
House-passed Bill, H.R. 4380
On July 30, 1998, the full House Appropriations Committee approved several
amendments to the bill that had been approved by the House DC Appropriations
Subcommittee on July 24. The changes made by the full Committee are noted in the
description that follows. The full House approved the dollar amounts of federal and
local funds recommended by the Appropriations Committee. However, additional
amendments regarding policy provisions were considered on the House floor during
the debate that began on August 6 and carried over into the early morning of August
7. Both the provisions that were adopted and those that were rejected on the House
floor are reported at the end of this section.
Federal funds. The House approved expenditures of $491.181 million in federal
funds for DC, using the full amount of the House’s 302(b) suballocation.38 This is
37
Both the House and Senate bills deleted many general provisions that were included in the
FY1998 DC Appropriations Act, although not as many as the District had requested be
deleted. The House and Senate bills did not include several new provisions that the District
had proposed.
For the District’s request, see U.S. President, 1992- (Clinton). D.C. Budget Request, FY
1999. Message from the President of the United States Transmitting the District of
Columbia’s Fiscal Year 1999 Budget Request Act. 105th Cong., 2d Sess., H.Doc. 105-294,
July 29, 1998. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1998. For a comparison of the District’s
request with the House Appropriations DC Subcommittee recommendations, see the
Subcommittee’s unpublished markup notes of July 24, 1998.
38
The House DC Appropriations Subcommittee had approved much lower federal
expenditures of $429.781 million. This was $61 million less than the House’s 302(b)
suballocation of $491 million. The was largely because the House Subcommittee did not
adopt the President’s economic development spending proposals for the District or the Senate
Appropriations Committee’s alternative. The House Appropriations Committee approved
$485.781 million. The full House added $5.4 million for the DC Student Opportunity
(continued...)
CRS-16
$5 million higher than the President’s request of $486 million and $9 million higher
than the Senate Appropriations Committee proposal of $481.8 million in federal
funds. (It is $42 million lower than the $533 million in federal funds appropriated for
FY1998, not including the $302 million appropriation for correctional facilities capital
construction and repair in FY1998.) The final Act approved slightly more than the
House — $494.590 million before adding the $125.0 million in offset provisions.
The House endorsed the amounts proposed by the President for the three
criminal justice functions now funded by the federal government: $184.8 million to
the DC corrections trustee for operations; $142 million to the DC courts, including
$121 million for operations and $21 million for capital improvements; and $59.4
million for the DC Offender Supervision, Defender, and Court Services Agency.
The Senate Appropriations Committee approved the same amounts for the
Corrections Trustee and the Offender Supervision Agency, and these were included
in the final Act. However, the Senate Appropriations Committee approved $14
million less for court capital improvements, $7 million, and thus courts as a whole,
$128 million. The Senate recommendation on courts was included in the final Act.
The managers’ amendment approved by the full House Appropriations
Committee added $4 million to the appropriation for the Offender Services Agency
for the establishment of a residential sanctions center and drug testing, intervention
and treatment. The managers’ amendment also added $7 million for an environmental
study and related cleanup activities at the Lorton Correctional Complex, to be
transferred to the federal agency with authority over the Complex; this funding would
be channeled through the DC Corrections Trustee. Both were included in the Housepassed bill. Neither appeared in the Senate committee bill. The Lorton program was
retained in the final Act, but the drug treatment program was not.
The House DC Appropriations Subcommittee rejected the President’s $100
million economic development proposal. Nor did it follow the Senate Appropriations
Committee in approving a $75 federal contribution to DC transportation
infrastructure. Instead, the House subcommittee approved only $1 million to study
the proposed Metro station improvements at the Washington Convention Center
project.
In contrast, the managers’ amendment approved by the full House
Appropriations Committee provided $25 million for improvements to the Mount
Vernon Square Metrorail station at the site of the proposed Washington Convention
Center, comparable to the President’s proposal and the Senate Appropriations
Committee bill. It also provided $21 million as a federal contribution to the Nation’s
Capital Infrastructure Fund for transportation infrastructure improvements in the
District. Together these total $46 million; that is still lower than the $75 million the
Senate Appropriations Committee provided for these items. The House-passed bill
followed these recommendations.
38
(...continued)
Scholarship program, the amount remaining under the 302(b) suballocation of $491.2 million.
CRS-17
The final DC Appropriations Act included $25 million for the Metrorail station,
as recommended in all the proposals. It included $18.777 million for the
infrastructure fund, slightly lower than the $21.0 million approved by the House, and
far less than the nearly $50 million that might be available under the Senate committee
bill. In addition, however, the offsets section (134) of the Omnibus Act provided $50
million for infrastructure and economic development projects, bringing the total
amount for these three categories to $93.778 million — far larger than either the
House or Senate proposal.
The full Appropriations Committee and the full House agreed with the DC
Appropriations Subcommittee’s recommendations on other items of federal funding.
This includes federal funding of $1.2 million for a Metropolitan Police Department
Office of Citizen Complaint Review; $3.240 million to fund a 5.5% pay raise for fire
fighters to establish parity with the police; and $20.391 for charter schools to be
added to the $12.235 million in local funds approved for charter schools. These
federal contributions are also included in the appropriation of DC local funds. The
final Act included these provisions, although the amount for charter schools was
reduced to $15.622 based on lower student enrollment figures.
The House subcommittee and full committee approved $8.5 million for the U.S.
Park Police Aviation Unit for a helicopter and necessary capital expenditures to the
aviation unit base. (Last year, the FY1998 Appropriations Act provided $12.0 million
to the Park Police for services to the District.) This was included in the final Act.
Where the Senate Appropriations Committee approved $1 million for a
Georgetown Waterfront Park Fund, the House approved $3 million for the District
to hire the Corps of Engineers to study and to make improvements to federal
property at the Washington Marina (Southwest Waterfront). The $3 million is also
included in the appropriation of local funds for economic development and regulation.
Both were included in the final Act.
Where the Senate committee approved $7.1 million in federal funds for Boys
Town USA operations in DC, the House approved $4.0 million in federal funds, on
the condition that Boys Town of Washington collects $3.1 million in matching funds
from private contributions. The final Act approved the full $7.1 million. The House
approved funding for the International Youth Service and Development Corps:
$50,000 for a resource hotline for low-income individuals and $200,000 for mentoring
at-risk children in the District. This was not included in the Senate committee bill but
was included in the final Act.
The Senate committee approved $500,000 each to conduct a needs and design
study for a National Museum of American Music and for a D.C. Historic Society city
museum. The House approved $2.0 million for the establishment and operation of
a city museum, provided that the Historic Society deposit an equivalent amount of
matching funds. The District is to lease the Carnegie Library at Mount Vernon
Square to the Historic Society as the site for the museum. The final Act approved the
House’s recommended $2.0 million for the city museum, conditional on matching
funds. The final Act provided $700,000 divided among three purposes: $300,000 for
a needs and design study for a National Museum of American Music; $300,000 for
the Washington Center Alliance to further and promote the objectives of the
CRS-18
Interactive Downtown Task Force; and $100,000 to Save New York Avenue, Inc. for
the further improvement of the portion of New York Avenue designated as the
Capital Gateway Corridor.
Title II was added to H.R. 4380 by amendment on the House floor. It
authorized the District of Columbia Student Opportunity Scholarship program for a
five-year period. Although $7 million in federal funds was authorized for FY1999,
the amount appropriated was $5.4 million, the amount remaining under the 302(b)
suballocation when the title was added. No school scholarship provision was
included in the Senate committee bill or the final Act.
Local funds. The House bill made a few changes to the District’s budget
request, and thus differs from the Senate Appropriations Committee bill in those
respects. Net, these changes increased by $27.258 million three totals shown in
Table 4: operating expenses of the general fund, all operating expenses, and District
of Columbia funds — when the House-passed bill is compared with the District’s
request and the Senate Appropriations Committee bill.
Under the category of government direction and support, the House rejected the
District’s request for $453,000 for Advisory Neighborhood Commissions (ANCs).39
Of the local funds appropriated for public education, the House committee earmarked
$750,000 ($244,078 for FY1998 and $500,000 for FY1999) to pay the Boy Scouts
of America for services provided at DC public schools. The House bill calls for $10
million in productivity savings from the District government, from wherever it
chooses.
The House approved nearly $28 million more in spending than the District had
requested, paying for those increases with federal funds. Under economic
development and regulation, the House subcommittee provided $3 million in federal
funds to study and carry out improvements to federal property at the Washington
Marina (Southwest Waterfront). Under public safety and justice, the House added
$1.2 million in federal funding for a Metropolitan Police Department Office of Citizen
Complaint Review and $3.240 for a 5.5% pay raise for firefighters, to bring them to
parity with police officers. These two items raised the total recommended
appropriation for public safety and justice by $4.440 million over the District’s
request. Under public education, the House provided $20.391 million in federal funds
for charter schools and raised the appropriation for charter schools from the $12.235
million requested by the District to $32.626 million. The final Act included these
provisions, but scaled the federal funds amount for charter schools down to $15.622
million (reflecting lower enrollment), and the corresponding aggregate amounts for
public schools, total operating expenses, and total DC funds fell accordingly.
Policy provisions. The House included several new policy provisions in its
FY1999 appropriations bill. Unless otherwise noted, these are not included in the bill
approved by the Senate Appropriations Committee. Some were included in the final
Act, but others were not. Under the appropriation of local funds for the Control
39
Both the full Committee and the full House rejected an amendment to restore the Advisory
Neighborhood Commission funding.
CRS-19
Board, the House bill would require the executive director and chief counsel of the
Control Board to repay salary received in fiscal years 1997 and 1998 that was in
excess of maximum rates permitted under the act that established the Control Board
(section 102 of P.L. 104-8).40 (The amounts in question are $21,173 for the executive
director and $19,504 for the general counsel as of August 1, 1998.) The House bill
would require the District to refund $17.8 million in overpaid parking tickets (Sec.
106). Neither was included in the final Act.
The House bill would limit the fees paid to attorneys representing a party who
prevails in an action against the DC Public Schools under the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (involving the District’s provision of special education for
children with disabilities) to amounts allowable under the DC Code, section 11-2604;
no funds could be paid to an attorney for a party prevailing in an administrative
proceeding (Sec. 130). The final Act limit the fees that could be paid for
administrative proceeding in the same was a attorneys’ fees (Sec. 130 of final DC
Appropriations Act). No funds could be used to pay any officer or employee who
fails to provide information requested by the Chief Financial Officer (Sec. 143); this
was not included in the final Act. No funds may be spent for the annual independent
audit of the District’s financial statements unless the audit is contracted for by the
District’s Inspector General (rather than the Control Board) (Sec. 144); this was
included in the final Act (Sec. 148).
The House bill would prevent the District from spending any appropriated funds
for any petition drive or civil action seeking to require Congress to provide voting
representation in Congress for the District (Sec. 147; Se. 151 final Act). (This is in
addition to the provision, carried over from prior years, which prohibits that any
appropriated funds be spent to support or defeat legislation pending before Congress
or any state legislature (Sec. 112 House, Senate, and final Act).) Like the Senate
committee bill, the House bill would repeal the District’s newly enacted residency
requirement for most new employees of the DC government (Sec. 148; Sec. 153 final
Act).41 Like the Senate committee bill and prior appropriations acts, the House
committee bill would prohibit the District from using local or federal monies to fund
most abortions (Sec. 131 House and final Act) or from enforcing the provision of
health, employment, and government benefits for unmarried domestic partners (Sec.
132 House; Sec. 133 final Act).42 All of these were included in the final Act.
The House bill would establish priorities for the use of any surplus of revenues
over operating expenses: first, to eliminate the accumulated general fund deficit;
second, to establish a reserve account not to exceed $250 million to finance seasonal
cash needs in lieu of short term borrowings; third, to accelerate repayment of cash
borrowed for the Water and Sewer Fund; and fourth, to reduce the outstanding long
40
The full Committee rejected an amendment to eliminate the provision regarding this salary
overpayment.
41
The House DC Subcommittee bill had upheld the District’s residency requirement.
42
The full committee rejected an amendment to prohibit the joint adoption of a child by two
people if they are not related by either blood or marriage.
CRS-20
term debt (which exceeds $3.2 billion) (Sec. 137. This was included in the final Act
(Sec. 138).
The House bill and final Act do not contain several provisions requested by the
District. The District was not given authorization to enter into contingent fee
contracts with attorneys to recoup District and federal Medicaid costs (as other states
have done in suing tobacco companies).
Amendments on the House floor. The full House approved several amendments
to the bill reported by the House Appropriations Committee. The following
amendments were included in the final Act:
1) clarify that the environmental study at the Lorton Correctional Complex and
related activities will include the property on which the complex is located;
2) prohibit the use of any funds43 to transfer or confine inmates above the medium
security level to the Northeast Ohio Correction Center in Youngstown, Ohio (Sec.
150 House; 154 final Act);
3) prohibit the use of any funds to conduct a ballot initiative to legalize marijuana or
reduce the penalties associated with its possession, use, or distribution (Sec. 151
House, 171 final Act);
4) prohibit the use of any funds, federal or local, for a needle exchange program for
the use of illegal drugs, and prohibit payments to any persons or entities (such as the
Whitman Walker Clinic) carrying out such a program (Secs. 149 and 152 House, 170
final Act).44
The following House amendments were not included in the final Act:
5) prohibit the use of any funds to carry out a joint adoption of a child by individuals
who are not related by blood or marriage (Sec. 153) (this provisions would prohibit
adoption by gay or lesbian couples, and other pairs of unrelated individuals; a single
person would still be permitted to adopt);
6) prohibit possession of tobacco products by minors under age 18; penalties include
community service, attending a tobacco cessation program, cash penalties, and
suspension of driving privileges (the penalties are modeled after the state of
Virginia’s) (Sec. 154); and
7) add a second title to the bill authorizing a limited program of school scholarships
or vouchers for low-income students who are residents of the District (this provision
is discussed in more detail in section after the next); the provisions of the school
scholarship amendment are similar to S. 1502, which was passed by the Senate on
November 9, 1997, and the House on April 30, 1998, but vetoed by the President (on
May 20, 1998).
The House rejected four amendments offered by the District of Columbia’s
Delegate, Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton:
43
These prohibitions all apply to the use of any funds appropriated under this Act.
44
The House Appropriations Committee had approved an amendment prohibiting the use of
federal (but not local) monies to support a needle exchange program for users of illegal drugs.
This was a substitute for an amendment, subsequently rejected by the Committee, to prohibit
the use of local as well as federal funds for a needle exchange program.
CRS-21
1) to restore the $573,000 in local funding for the Advisory Neighborhood
Commissions that had been requested by the District;
2) to allow local funds to be expended for abortions, while still prohibiting the use of
federal funds;
3) to remove the prohibition in the bill against the use of funds by the DC government
for a petition drive or civil action which seeks to require Congress to provide for
voting representation in Congress; and
4) to strike the section of the bill that repeals the District’s recently enacted residency
requirement for newly hired District Government employees.
The general provision (Section 131) providing that operating funds be available
only when appropriated in an annual appropriations Act was removed by a point of
order. This would have infringed on the Control Board’s right to spend funds derived
from intra-District transfers and interest earnings.
Clinton Administration position.45 The Administration seriously opposed three
amendments which, if included in the final bill from Congress, could lead the
President’s senior advisers to recommend a veto: the private school vouchers, the
prohibition on adoptions by couples who are not married or related by blood; and the
prohibition on funding needle exchange programs.
The Clinton Administration expressed its disappointment that the House bill did
not fund the President’s proposals for economic development by federal funding for
management reform and a locally-chartered revitalization corporation. The
Administration supports the increased funding for charter schools.
The Administration is generally opposed to what it views as unwarranted
intrusion into the affairs of the District and the Congress’s undercutting the authority
of the Control Board and the Superintendent of Public Schools by placing conditions
on the management of the District Government. The Administration opposes the
restriction on the use of local funds for abortions. It supports restoring funding for
the Advisory Neighborhood Commissions. It would like the amendment prohibiting
smoking by minors to be made a sense of Congress amendment. It is concerned by
provisions that legislate how local funds are used for salaries and pay raises in the DC
public schools.
45
Executive Office of the President. Office of Management and Budget. HR. 4380, District
of Columbia Appropriations Bill, FY 1999. Statement of Administration Policy.
Washington, House Floor. August 6, 1998.
CRS-22
Title II — District of Columbia Student Opportunity Scholarships.46 ( T h i s
provision was not included in the final Act.) Title II of H.R. 4380 would have
authorized the provision of scholarships to a limited number of the District of
Columbia’s resident students in grades K-12 from low-income families, for an initial
five-year period . The scholarships could be used to attend public or private schools
in the District or nearby suburbs (tuition scholarships), or pay the costs of
supplementary academic programs outside regular school hours for students attending
District of Columbia Public Schools (DCPS) (enhanced achievement scholarships).
The authorized appropriation level for this program would be $7 million for FY1999,
$8 million for FY2000, and $10 million for each of FY2001-FY2003, plus a one-time
authorization of $250,000 for program evaluation. No more than 7.5% of the
appropriations for any year could be used for program administration.
H.R. 4380 appropriates $5.4 million in federal funds for the scholarship program.
(With a budget of $5.4 million, possibly fewer than 2,000 students would be assisted.
This is less than 3% of the estimated student enrollment of 74,283 in the DC public
schools and 4,400 in charter schools for the 1998-99 school year.)
The scholarship program would be administered by a private, non-profit
corporation known as the District of Columbia Scholarship Corporation. A District
of Columbia Scholarship Fund would be established within the U.S. Treasury to hold
the federal funds appropriated until they are dispersed to the Corporation.
(Expenditures for the scholarship program would not appear in the District’s budget.)
Eligible for scholarships are students in grades K-12 who are residents of the District,
with family income below 185% of the standard federal poverty income threshold for
a family of their size. During the first three program years, first priority in the
awarding of scholarships would go to students who have been attending the DC
public schools (DCPS) or are about to enter DCPS kindergarten. In all years, priority
would also be given to students who received a scholarship in the preceding academic
year. Pupils already in private school might receive scholarships if funds remain after
the public school pupils are served. If funds are insufficient to provide scholarships
to all eligible applicants, recipients would be selected by lottery.
There would be two types of scholarships: (a) “tuition scholarships” could be
used to pay the costs of tuition and fees at a public or private school in the District or
the inner ring of suburban jurisdictions; and (b) “enhanced achievement scholarships”
could pay the costs of tuition, fees, and transportation for “a program of instruction
... which enhances student achievement of the core curriculum and is operated outside
of regular school hours to supplement the regular school program” (Section
46
This school scholarship provision is nearly identical to the provision that was considered as
part of the FY1998 D.C. appropriations bill. It was included in Title III of H.R. 2607 as
originally passed by the House in 1997. It was split off from the version of H.R. 2607
approved by the Senate, and passed by the Senate as a separate bill, S. 1502, on November
9, 1997. S. 1502 was approved by the House on April 30, 1998, but vetoed by President
Clinton on May 20, 1998. Public-private school choice proposals for pupils in the District
of Columbia were also extensively considered, but not enacted, during the 104th Congress,
particularly H.R. 2546; see CRS Report 95-1030, District of Columbia Public Schools:
Status of Federal Legislation Affecting Them.
CRS-23
203(c)(2)). The dollar amount of tuition scholarships would be the lesser of $3,200
or 100% of tuition, fees, and transportation costs if family income is below the
poverty level, and the lesser of $2,400 or 75% of tuition, fees, and transportation
costs if family income is between 100% and 185% of poverty (185% of the poverty
level is also the maximum income for pupil eligibility for free or reduced price school
lunches). The dollar amount of enhanced achievement scholarships would be the
lesser of tuition, fees, and transportation or $500 for all students with family income
below 185% of poverty. The maximum dollar amounts for scholarships would be
adjusted in the future by changes in the Consumer Price Index (CPI). Scholarships
would be considered aid to the student, not the institution. Participating schools
could not charge scholarship recipients tuition and fees in excess of the amounts
charged to other DC students attending the school.
Participating institutions could not discriminate on the basis of race, color,
national origin, or sex, although schools might operate single-sex classes or
institutions. It is explicitly provided that religiously-affiliated schools participating in
the scholarship program might give preference to members of a specific religion in
admissions or employment, and that scholarship funds might be used for sectarian
purposes by such schools. The program does affect the rights of students or the
obligations of the District of Columbia public schools under the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act.
The bill lays out conditions for new educations institutions to become eligible to
participate in the program on a provisional basis. A school’s eligibility to participate
in the scholarship program might be revoked for “good cause” (such as failure to meet
program requirements), or if 25% or more of the scholarship recipients at the school
fail to “make appropriate progress (as determined by the Corporation).” Within four
years of enactment, the U.S. General Accounting Office would be required to contract
for an evaluation of the scholarship program, including comparisons of scholarship
recipients and similar but non-participating students in the DCPS with respect to
achievement test scores, graduation rates, parental satisfaction, and impact of the
program on the DCPS.47
Senate Appropriations Committee Bill, S. 2333
Federal funds. The Senate Committee bill endorsed several of the President’s
requests for federal funding. However, it differed with the President’s proposals on
federal funding of DC economic development. The major differences were that the
Senate Committee bill would appropriate for transportation infrastructure the $50
million that the President proposed as seed money to capitalize an economic
development corporation in the District, and would use the $25 million for
management reform more broadly than for economic development purposes only. See
Table 3.
The Senate Appropriations Committee proposed a total of $481.8 million in
federal funding for the District. That is $4.4 million lower than the $486.2 million
47
This description draws from CRS Issue Brief 98035. School Choice: Current Legislation,
by Wayne Riddle and James Stedman. (Updated regularly)
CRS-24
requested by the President. It matches the Senate’s May 14th 302(b) suballocation of
$482 million but is $9 million lower than the Senate’s July 13th suballocation of $491
million. (It is $51 million lower than the $533 million in federal funds appropriated
for FY1998, not including the $302 million appropriation for correctional facilities
capital construction and repair in FY1998.)
The President proposed $100 million in federal support for economic
development and management reforms, composed of $50 million in seed money for
a locally-chartered economic development corporation, $25 million for Metro station
improvements at the proposed Washington Convention Center, and $25 million in
payments to DC for management reforms to improve economic development
infrastructure. The Senate Appropriations Committee bill reconfigured this $100
million.
Like the President’s proposal, the Senate Appropriations Committee bill would
provide $25 million for management reform. However, unlike the President’s
proposal, it would not be restricted to management reform efforts related to economic
development. Instead, it could be used for any of the types of management reforms
identified in the 1997 Revitalization Act. The final Act included $25 million for
management reforms.
The Senate Appropriations Committee bill did not endorse the President’s
proposal for providing $50 million in seed money for an economic development
corporation for the District of Columbia and specifically forbade capitalizing the
National Capital Revitalization Act of 1998 (D.C. Act 12-355) enacted this spring by
the DC Council. However, the Senate committee bill would provide $500 million to
conduct a study and prepare a report for Congress by May 1, 1999, on the feasibility
of such an economic development corporation. An offsets provision in the final Act
provides $25 million to capitalize the economic development corporation.
Instead, the Senate committee bill would provide $75 million for transportation
infrastructure needs of the District, namely the repair and maintenance of roads,
highways, bridges and transit. Of that $75 million, up to $25 million could be used
for improvements to the Mount Vernon Square Metrorail station at the site of the
proposed new Washington Convention Center. The President also proposed $25
million for those Metrorail station improvements as part of his $100 million economic
development package. The final Act provides $25 million for the Metrorail station
and $50 million from the offsets for transportation infrastructure and economic
development projects.
The Senate Appropriations Committee bill requests the same amount as the
President for the DC Corrections Trustee for operations, $184.8 million, and for the
Offender Supervision, Defender, and Court Services (Offender Services) Agency,
$59.4 million. For the District’s courts, the Senate committee bill requests the same
amount as the President for operations, $121 million, but less for capital
improvements, $7 million instead of the President’s $21 million. Thus, the Senate
committee’s total request for the courts is $128 million, compared with the
President’s $142 million. These amounts are included in the final Act.
CRS-25
In addition, the Senate committee bill proposes federal funding for four specific
projects in the District not found in the President’s budget. Boys Town U.S.A. would
receive $7.1 million for its activities in the District, including $4.7 million in capital
costs for constructing five residential facilities and $2.4 million in first-year operating
costs for those facilities. The Georgetown Waterfront Park Fund would receive $1
million in federal funds (to be matched by $1 million in contributions, in cash or in
kind) for construction and landscaping. These amounts are included in the final Act.
A federal contribution of $500,000 each would be given to conduct needs and design
studies for two proposed new museums to be located in the District: a National
Museum of American Music and a City Museum and Visitors Center. The final Act
provides $300,000 for the music museum and $2 million for the city museum.
Local funds. The Senate Appropriations Committee bill completely endorses
the District’s proposed budget of its own local funds, unlike the House-passed bill,
which made some changes that were endorsed in the final Act.
Policy provisions. The Senate Appropriations Committee bill includes
numerous “general provisions” directing the operation of the DC government and its
policies. Many of the Senate’s general provisions are the same as those in the Housepassed bill. All but one of these carry over from the FY1998 Act.48 As in prior year
appropriations acts and the House-passed bill, the Senate committee bill for FY1999
would prohibit the District from funding most abortions (Sec. 129 Senate, 131 final
Act) or from enforcing the provision of health and other employment or government
benefits for unmarried domestic partners (Sec. 131 Senate, 133 final Act). The only
new provision that the House-passed bill and Senate Appropriations Committee bill
agree on is to repeal a provision recently enacted by the DC Council to require
District residency for newly hired employees of the District government (Sec. 145
Senate, 153 final Act). All of these were included in the final Act.
The Senate Committee bill contains numerous new provisions not found in the
House passed bill. Among these, the Senate bill addresses the controversy that
surrounded the appointment of a Chief Management Officer and the salaries paid to
certain District officials. The Senate Committee bill contains a new section (151) that
authorizes the Control Board to employ a Chief Management Officer (CMO) and to
delegate to the CMO responsibility for oversight and supervision of whichever
departments the Control Board determines. This is included in the final Act (Sec.
159). The Senate bill would have given the CMO is the authority to appoint and fix
the pay of staff as the CMO considers appropriate, but this was not included in the
final Act. The employment agreement of January 15, 1998 between the Control
Board and the current CMO, Camille Barnett, is declared valid. The final act did not
go along with the Senate bill which would have permitted the Control Board to set
a market-competitive market salary for the CMO (Sec. 151) as well as the Chief
48
There are several provisions from the FY1998 Act that the House bill carries over but the
Senate Appropriations Committee bill does not. See House Sec. 128, 133, and 134 regarding
reporting requirements for University of the District of Columbia, the DC Public Schools, and
the Emergency Transitional Education Board of Trustees; Sec. 138 regarding an energy and
water conservation plan for the public schools; and Sec. 141 regarding compliance with the
Buy American Act.
CRS-26
Financial Officer (Sec. 152), the Inspector General (Sec. 153), and the Executive
Director of the Control Board (Sec. 157).
To help control the costs associated with the special education program, the
Senate Appropriations Committee bill would increase from the current 50 days to 120
days the amount of time that the District of Columbia Public Schools (DCPS) has to
assess and place a student with a disability who may require special education services
(Sec. 140). Currently, if the school district fails to meet the time deadline, parents
are often successful in arguing that their child should immediately be placed in a
private school program, with the DCPS bearing the cost of the legal proceedings,
tuition, and transportation, estimated at $48,000 per student for FY1999. The final
Act included this change (Sec. 145).
The Senate Committee bill includes the DC Adoption Improvement Act of 1998
(Sec. 149). Its objective is to have more children placed in permanent homes through
adoption, rather than leaving them in the foster care system where they move from
one home to another. The District’s adoption and foster care system has been under
federal court receivership since 1995. With significant changes in wording, this
provision was included in the final Act (Sec. 157).
Receiverships or other agencies under a court-appointed official would be
required to submit their budget to the Mayor to be included in the District’s annual
budget, to be forwarded to the Council (Sec. 136). The Mayor and Council could
make recommendations, but could not change the estimates. This was included in the
final Act (Sec. 140).
Beginning with FY2000, a reserve of $150 million would be established by the
Chief Financial Office (CFO) for the Control Board, to be spent according to criteria
established by the CFO and approved by the Control Board (Sec. 146). The
Committee report indicates that this is intended to provide flexibility in unforseen
circumstances, such as a change in law that mandates certain actions or one-time
expenditures in technology. This is included in the final Act (Sec. 155).
The Senate Committee is concerned that various nonprofit organizations are
unable to deliver medical and social services because the District government has
withdrawn its financial support. The bill would require the Control Board to report
to the congressional appropriations and authorizing committees on the status of all
partnerships or agreements between the District government and such nonprofit
organizations, and, on its plans to reinstate any terminated partnership (Sec. 144).
This was included in the final Act (Sec. 152).
The University of the District of Columbia would be permitted to invest in
equity-based securities (Sec. 135, Sec. 139 final Act). The DC Public Library would
be authorized to hire a fundraiser and raise funds from private sources, to be spent
with prior approval of the CFO and Control Board (Sec. 148). The number of years
that the same auditor may audit the District’s financial statement and report would be
extended from 3 to 5 years (Sec. 154, Sec. 160 final Act), as requested by the Control
Board; this is intended to provide auditing firms greater incentive to bid on the
contract. These were all included in the final Act.
CRS-27
Under the Senate proposal, funds that are accumulated through fees charged for
local services that are non-appropriated could be expended by the CFO with prior
written approval of the Control Board (Sec. 147). This was not included in the final
Act.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers would be given limited authority to contract
for engineering and construction services, to facilitate its ability to assist the DC
Public Schools with their capital improvements program (Sec. 130, Sec. 132 final
Act). Unlike the House, the Senate bill carries over from the FY1998 Act the
requirement that the Control Board and the Chief Executive Officer of the DC public
schools report to Congress by April 1 on all measures necessary and steps to be taken
to ensure that the public schools begin on time the next academic year, 1999-2000
(Sec. 137, Sec. 141 final Act). These were both included in the final Act.
Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations
Act, 1999, P.L. 4328, P.L. 105-277
The District of Columbia Appropriations Act, 1999, was included as Division A,
Section 101(c) of the Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations Act, 1999 (H.R. 4328, P.L. 105-277), enacted October 21, 1998.49
The conference agreement on the Omnibus Act added several items of federal funding
that had not been included in either the House or Senate committee bill. Under the
regular DC Appropriations Act the conference agreement added $1 million for the
Children’s National Medical Center. It provided $3 million for a Medicare
coordinated care demonstration project, as had been provided in the FY1998 Act.
In addition to the DC Appropriations Act, sections 131 - 134 at the end of
Division A appropriated another $125 million in federal funds for the District of
Columbia for four designated purposes. This included $25 million to capitalize the
DC National Capital Revitalization Corporation; $30 million for special education
costs in the DC Public Schools; $20 million for year 2000 information technology; and
$50 million for transportation infrastructure and economic development projects.
Combined with the provisions of the regular appropriations act, this provided more
economic development assistance to the District than had been included in the
President’s original February 1998 budget request.
The additional $125 million was part of an “offsets” agreement between the
Clinton Administration and congressional leadership included in the conference
agreement on the Omnibus bill. The offsets package involved converting the private
assets held by certain DC pension funds into U.S. Treasury securities (section 130 of
Division A), and using the estimated $4.2 billion in revenue proceeds from the asset
sales to finance a variety of programs during FY1999, including the $125 million for
the District of Columbia.
49
The District of Columbia Appropriations Act was one of eight appropriations bills included
in P.L. 105-277's Division A, Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations, Section 101.
CRS-28
The conference report did not introduce any substantial changes to the
appropriation of local funds. The conference report did introduce a few general
provisions that were not included in either the House-passed or Senate committee bill
(Secs. 162-169).
Major Funding Trends: Federal Funds
Impact of the Revitalization Act
The National Capital Revitalization and Self-government Improvement Act of
1997 (the Revitalization Act, P.L. 105-33) dramatically changed the way of
appropriating federal funds for the District of Columbia beginning in FY1998. More
changes were implemented for FY1999. These changes have made it more
complicated to compare funding trends over time.
To start, the Revitalization Act eliminated the annual federal payment to the
District and annual federal contribution to certain DC retirement funds that had been
present through FY1997. Consequently, the historical trend in federal funding since
FY1993 tracked in Table 2 cannot be extended beyond FY1997.
Table 2. District of Columbia Appropriations, FY1993 to FY1997
(budget authority in millions of current dollars)a
Federal Monies to DC
FY1993
FY1994
FY1995
FY1996
FY1997
Federal Payment
624.854
630.603
660.603
660.000
660.000
Federal Contribution to
DC Retirement Funds
52.070
52.070
52.070
52.070
52.070
Other Federal
Appropriations
11.075
17.327
0
0
6.702
Total
687.999
700.000
712.673
712.070
718.772
a
These figures represent current dollars, exclude permanent budget authorities, and reflect
rescissions.
Simply adding together the amount of federal funds appropriated and local funds
appropriated overstates the total amount of expenditures being approved on behalf
of the District, because there is some overlap. Some of the federal funds appropriated
are paid to the District government and appropriated again as part of local funds.
(For FY1999 this includes the $3 million for waterfront improvements at the
Washington Marina, $1.2 million for the civilian complaint review board, $3.240
million for the fire-fighters pay raise, and $15.622 million for charter schools.)
However, as a result of the changes brought about by the Revitalization Act — and
programs added in the FY1999 appropriation — a large portion of the federal funds
is now paid to entities other than the District government (or the Control Board
acting as its agent); these amounts are not counted in DC local funds. It would also
CRS-29
apply to federal funding for a scholarship program administered outside the District
government.
For FY1997 and prior years, the federal payment to the District was paid to the
District government and the same funds were appropriated again as part of the
District’s expenditure of local funds. Under the Revitalization Act, starting in
FY1998, the federal government took direct responsibility for funding three justice
functions (corrections, offender supervision, and courts). The federal funds for those
functions are now paid to trustees or other entities outside the District government
and spending for those functions has been dropped from the District’s budget of local
funds.50 However, the appropriation of federal funds for those justice functions
remains under the DC appropriations bill, with one exception, prison construction,
beginning in FY1999.
In FY1998, the first year of the Revitalization Plan, the federal payment to the
DC Corrections Trustee for correctional facilities construction and repair was part of
the appropriation of federal funds to the District of Columbia. Beginning in FY1999,
however, federal funding for new prison construction for DC’s convicted adult felons
(the capital spending component of corrections) is to be made to the Federal Prison
System in the Department of Justice, through the appropriation for the Departments
of Commerce, Justice, State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies. The President
requested $300,000 for these prison capital expenditures for FY1999.
This shift in the subcommittee jurisdiction for funding capital construction for
correctional facilities for the District largely explains the decline in the proposed
appropriation of federal funds for the District of Columbia — from $835 million
(actual) in FY1998 to $486 million (President’s amended request) in FY1999. To
avoid confusion in comparisons between fiscal years, the measure of total federal
funding for FY1998 has been revised downward by the prison construction amount
of $302 million, from $835 million to $533 million.
Another major change is that no unrestricted federal contribution was
requested for FY1999. Although the Revitalization Act eliminated the annual federal
payment, it did authorize another form of unrestricted cash contribution, called a
“federal contribution to operations of government of the nation’s capital” or “federal
contribution.” However, the Revitalization Act authorized a specific dollar amount
for the contribution for FY1998 only ($190 million). The Act left the contribution
amount for FY1999 and future years to be determined in relation to certain
considerations enumerated in the law. The fact that no federal contribution was
requested by the President for FY1999 led to a proposal from the Clinton
Administration and a bill being introduced Congress (H.R. 3920) that would eliminate
the Congress’s role in approving the District of Columbia’s budget. (See The
Federal Contribution section at the end of this report).51
50
Federal funds paid into escrow accounts with the Control Board for safekeeping on behalf
of the District are counted in local funds.
51
This brief summary focuses on the budgetary and financial aspects of the revitalization plan
(continued...)
CRS-30
Instead of providing the District with an unrestricted money contribution for
FY1999, the President and Congress have chosen instead to provide federal funding
to the District in the form of numerous separate appropriations earmarked for
particular programs. In the aggregate, the amount of federal funds appropriated for
the District in the final FY1999 Omnibus Appropriations Act was $619.590 million.
This includes $494.590 million under the DC Appropriations Act and $125.0 million
under the offsets package. (In comparison, $533.0 million in federal funds were
appropriated for FY1998.) At first glance, the $620 million total may appear
comparable to the $660 million annual federal payment that the District was receiving
prior to the Revitalization Act. The major difference is that the District is not free to
spend that money as it chooses. In some cases the earmarked money is paying for
functions taken over from the District, or that the District would otherwise be
financing on its own; it thus provides some financial relief for the District’s budget.
This description applies to most of the items in part 1 of Table 3, authorized by the
Revitalization Act. In other cases, however, the federal funds are earmarked for
additional or new programs or projects that might not otherwise be undertaken by the
District. While these federal funds supply additional financial resources to the
District, they do not necessarily provide financial relief to the District’s budget. This
description applies to many of the items introduced in the FY1999 appropriations,
listed in parts 2 and 4 of Table 3.
51
(...continued)
for the District. Not discussed are other significant aspects, such as changes involving
sentencing, parole, location of prisoners, and disposition of the Lorton Correctional Complex
in Fairfax County, Virginia, required as a condition of federal takeover of DC corrections
responsibilities, and the temporary shift in management responsibility from the mayor and
council to the control board required by the final legislation. For further detail, see CRS
Report 97-766. District of Columbia Revitalization: Legislation Enacted by the 105th
Congress, by Eugene Boyd, Coordinator.
CRS-31
Table 3. District of Columbia Appropriations, Federal Funds
(in millions of dollars)
Appropriation of
Federal Funds for
DC
FY1998
Enacted
Pres.’s
Amended
FY1999
Request
House
Bill
H.R. 4380
Senate
Approp.
Com.
Bill
S. 2333
Final
Enacted
H.R. 4328,
P.L.
105-277
1. Provisions authorized under the 1997 Revitalization Act
Payment for
management reform
8.000
—
—
25.000
25.000
Contribution to the
operations of the
nation’s capital
190.000
—
—
—
—
Payment to the DC
corrections trustee,
for operations
169.000
184.800
184.800
184.800
184.800
Payment to the DC
corrections trustee for
correctional facilities,
construction and
a
repair
{302.000}a
{300.000}a
—
—
—a
Payment to DC
courts—total
108.000
142.000
142.000
128.000
128.000
Court capital
improvements
[0]
[21.000]
[21.000]
[7.000]
[7.000]
Court operations
[103.000]
[121.000]
[121.000]
[121.000]
[121.000]
DC Truth in
Sentencing
Commission
[.750]
—
—
—
—
Payment to the DC
Judicial Retirement
and Survivors
Annuity Fund
[5.000]
—b
—
—
—
Offender Supervision,
Defender, and Court
Services Agency
43.000
59.400
59.400
59.400
59.400
Parole revocation,
adult probation and
offender supervision
[26.855]
[33.802]
[33.802]
[33.802]
[33.802]
Public defender
service
[9.000]
[14.486]
[14.486]
[14.486]
[14.486]
Pretrial services
agency
[6.345]
[11.112]
[11.112]
[11.112]
[11.112]
U.S. Parole
Commission
[.800]
—
—
—
—
CRS-32
Appropriation of
Federal Funds for
DC
FY1998
Enacted
Pres.’s
Amended
FY1999
Request
House
Bill
H.R. 4380
Senate
Approp.
Com.
Bill
S. 2333
Final
Enacted
H.R. 4328,
P.L.
105-277
2. Provisions added for FY1999 within the DC appropriations bill
Offender Supervision,
Defender, and Court
Services Agency, for
drug treatment
programs
—
—
4.000
—
—
DC Corrections
Trustee, for
environmental study
& related activities at
Lorton Correctional
Complex
—
—
7.000
—
7.000
Federal support for
economic
development and
management reforms
—
100.000
[25.000]
.500
—c
Locally chartered
economic
development
corporation (DC
National Capital
Revitalization
Corporation)
—
[50.000]
—
[.500]
—c
Metro station
improvements at the
proposed Washington
Convention Center
—
[25.000]
25.000
[25.000]d
25.000
Management reforms
to improve economic
development
infrastructure
—
[25.000]
—
—
—c
Nation’s Capital
infrastructure fund
—
—e
21.000
75.000d
18.778c
Boys Town USA
operations in DC
—
—
4.000
7.100
7.100
Georgetown
Waterfront Park Fund
—
—
—
1.000
1.000
National Museum of
American Music and
Downtown
Revitalization
—
—
—
—
.700
National Museum of
American Music
—
—
—
.500
[.300]
D.C. Historic Society
City Museum
—
—
2.000
.500
2.000
CRS-33
FY1998
Enacted
Pres.’s
Amended
FY1999
Request
House
Bill
H.R. 4380
Senate
Approp.
Com.
Bill
S. 2333
Final
Enacted
H.R. 4328,
P.L.
105-277
Metropolitan Police
Dept., Office of
Citizen Complaint
Reviewf
—
—
1.200
—
1.200
Pay raise for fire
fightersf
—g
3.240
—
3.240
U.S. Park Police
Aviation Unit
—h
—
8.500
—
8.500
Waterfront
improvements at
Washington Marinaf
—
—
3.000
—
3.000
Operation of resource
hotline for low
income individuals
—
—
.050
—
.050
Mentoring for at-risk
children
—
—
.200
—
.200
Charter schoolsf
—
—
20.391
—
15.622
Student opportunity
scholarships
—
—
5.400
—
—
Children’s National
Medical Center
—
—
—
—
1.000
Appropriation of
Federal Funds for
DC
International Youth
Service and
Development Corps:
3. Provisions added for FY1998 by the appropriations committees
Payment to National
Park Service, U.S.
Park Policeh
12.000
—
—
—
—
Medicare coordinated
care demonstration
project
3.000
—
—
—
3.000
Total Federal Funds
to DC (in DC
appropriations bill)
533.000a
486.200b
491.181
481.800c
494.590
CRS-34
Appropriation of
Federal Funds for
DC
FY1998
Enacted
Pres.’s
Amended
FY1999
Request
House
Bill
H.R. 4380
Senate
Approp.
Com.
Bill
S. 2333
Final
Enacted
H.R. 4328,
P.L.
105-277
4. Provisions added in FY1999 conference”offsets” outside the DC appropriations bill
(references to section numbers at the end of Division A of P.L. 105-277)
DC National Capital
Revitalization
Corporation
(Sec. 131)
—
—
—
—
25.000
Special education in
DC Public Schools
(Sec. 132)
—
—
—
—
30.000
Year 2000
information
technology
(Sec. 133)
—
—
—
—
20.000
Infrastructure &
economic
development projects
(Sec. 134)
—
—
—
—
50.000
Subtotal from
“offsets”
—
—
—
—
125.000
533.000a
486.200b
491.181
481.800
619.590
Total Federal Funds
including “offsets”
monies
Sources: President’s FY1999 budget request: U.S. Executive Office of the President. Office of
Management and Budget. Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 1999. Appendix.
Transmitted to Congress February 2, 1998. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1998. pp. 1048-63.
FY1998 enacted, President’s request, and Senate Appropriations Committee numbers from U.S.
Congress. Senate. Committee on Appropriations. District of Columbia Appropriations Bill, 1999.
Report to accompany S. 2333. S.Rept. 105-254. 105th Cong., 2nd Sess., July 21, 1998. p. 4.
House numbers from: U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Appropriations. District of Columbia
Appropriations Bill, 1999. Report to accompany H.R. 4380. H.Rept. 105-670. 105th Cong., 2nd
Sess., August 3, 1998. p. 94. Final enacted: Conference Report on H.R. 4328, Making Omnibus
Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1999 (H.Rept. 105-825).
Printed in Congressional Record, Daily Edition, vol. 144, no. 149, October 19, 1998. p. H11341;
offset package, p. H11193, H11520.
Notes: Straight brackets [ ] indicate that the dollar amount is also included in another line item.
a
Starting in FY1999, funding for construction and repair of correctional facilities is no longer
included in the DC appropriation. Instead, federal funding for prison construction related to housing
DC felons is to be requested by the Federal Prison System within the Department of Justice. For
FY1999, $300 million was requested under the appropriation for the Departments of Commerce,
Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies. FY1999 U.S. Budget Appendix, p. 615.
The explanatory statement regarding the appropriation for FY1999 for the Department of Justice,
Federal Prison System, buildings and facilities account states: “The conference agreement includes
funding for construction of three Federal Correctional Institutions and partial funding of a fourth to
provide additional capacity to accommodate the space requirements for the transfer of District of
CRS-35
Columbia sentenced felons to the Federal Prison System, as mandated by the District of Columbia
Revitalization Act, as set f orth in the Senate report.” No specific dollar amount is given. Joint
Explanatory Statement of the Committee of Conference [on H.R. 4328], Congressional Record,
Daily Edition, vol. 144, no. 149, October 19, 1998, p. H11309.
In this table, for the sake of comparability between years, the total appropriation of federal funds to
the District of Columbia for FY1998 has been reduced by the $302 million that was paid to the
Corrections Trustee for construction and repair, from$835 million to $533 million.
b
In addition to the proposed court funding of $142 million, the President’s original budget request
of February 1998 included a $6 million federal payment to the DC Judicial Retirement and Survivors
Annuity Fund. The President also proposed that the payments to the judges’ pension fund be
changed from discretionary to mandatory expenditures. FY1999 U.S. Budget Appendix, p. 1049-50.
However, the President’s FY1999 budget amendments of May 1998 withdrew this $6 million
request. Instead, the federal contribution for judges’ pensions in FY1999 will be paid from the
pension fund assets transferred from the District to the federal government under the provisions of
the 1997 Revitalization Act. Removing this $6 million request reduced the total for the President’s
FY1999 budget request for the District from $492 million to $486 million.
c
See the “offsets” in part 4 of this table.
d
The Senate Appropriations Subcommittee bill would permit up to $25 million of the $75 million
for transportation infrastructure to be used for improvements at the Mount Vernon Square Metrorail
station at the site of the proposed new Washington Convention Center.
e
The District requested $254 million in federal capital funding, but it was not included in the
President’s budget request.
f
Amounts for these items are also included within the appropriation of DC local funds for the
receiving agency. See Table 4.
g
In the final version of the FY1998 DC Appropriations Act, $2.6 million in local funds were
approved for a pay increase for fire fighters, but the ceiling on operating expenses was not increased
to cover this expenditure.
h
The FY1998 DC Appropriations Act included $12 million in federal funding to the National Park
Service for U.S. Park Police services to the District, as listed separately in part 3 of this table.
302(b) Suballocation
The President’s revised FY1999 budget request for the District was for $486
million in budget authority.52 The Senate’s May 14, 1998 302(b) suballocation of the
budget totals for the District of Columbia was for $482 million. As of July 13, 1998,
the Senate raised its suballocation to the level set by the House Appropriations
Committee on June 24: $491 million.53 The House used its full suballocation of $491
52
The President’s original February 1998 request for the District was for $492 million in
budget authority. This included $6 million for judges’ pensions, which was withdrawn in the
President’s budget amendments of May 20,1998.
53
For outlays, the President requested $485 million, and the House and Senate $484 million.
U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Appropriations. Report on the Revised Suballocation
of Budget Total for Fiscal Year 1999. 105th Cong., 2d Sess., H.Rept. 105-600, June 24,
1998. (The House Appropriations Committee issued subsequent revised suballocations, but
the dollar amount for DC did not change.) U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on
(continued...)
CRS-36
million in federal funds for DC. The Senate Appropriations Committee bill approved
$482 million, equal to its May 14th 302(b) suballocation, but $9 million lower than
its higher July 13th suballocation of $491 million.
The amount of federal funds approved for DC appropriations in the final
appropriations act — $494.590 million — exceeds these 302(b) suballocations. With
respect to budget allocations, the requirements of the Budget Act were waived for the
final Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act, 1999,
H.R. 4328, P.L. 105-277. In the aggregate, the Omnibus bill did not violate the
overall 302(a) budget allocation for the eight appropriations bills which it
encompassed, although adjustments had been made in individual bills. No revised
302(b) allocations were calculated for each of the original individual appropriations
bills after the conference agreement on the Omnibus bill was reached.
Major Funding Trends: District of Columbia Funds
The District of Columbia government and financial control board submitted a
consensus budget request for FY1999 to the Congress on June 1, 1998. The
operating expense budget included $5.231 billion in revenues, and $5.189 billion in
expenditures, with a surplus of $41 billion.
The District’s largest increase in recommended spending compared with FY98
was for the DC Public Schools — within the budget for the public education system.
The District government’s request for $648 million was nonetheless $60 million less
than the school district had requested.
The budget request for the operations of the Control Board itself was reduced
by $500 million from $3.220 million to $2.720 million. However, the overall budget
request for the DCFRMA increased to$7.840 million to include $5.120 million for
the office of the Chief Management Officer (CMO), Dr. Camille Barnett.
Receiverships is a new category in the DC budget for FY1999. This will help
account for areas of expenditure of local funds are currently beyond the control of the
District government and Control Board because they are largely determined by court
orders. Three of the city’s four receiverships are included: the LaShawn Foster Care
Receiver, the Commission on Mental Health Receiver, and the Department of
Corrections Medical Receiver. Not included is the receiver for the Department of
Public and Assisted Housing, on the grounds that it is financed predominantly by
federal monies. The budget for the receiverships for FY1998 is recorded as zero
because they were not included in the DC budget for appropriations purposes, even
though these activities did have expenditures in prior fiscal years.
53
(...continued)
Appropriations. Further Revised Allocation to Subcommittees of Budget Total, Fiscal Year
1999. 105th Cong., 2d Sess., S.Prt. 105-247, July 13, 1998. President’s budget request
obtained from the House Appropriations Committee, July 16, 1998.
CRS-37
Based on the numbers presented in Table 4, the difference between the District’s
request for total general fund operating expenses in FY1999 and the amount enacted
for FY1998 is $348 million. However, if the $319 million for receiverships is
subtracted from the FY1999 budget request in order to standardize the comparison,
then the FY1999 request is just $29 million larger than the FY1998 appropriation of
$4.0 billion.
The net increase in operating expenses for all of the District’s enterprise funds
considered together is $15 million above the FY1998 request of $646 million.
The apparent $1.4 billion increase in capital expenditures between FY1998 and
FY1999 is misleading. The FY1998 appropriation for capital expenditures of $269
million is for one year only. The $1.7 billion requested in the FY1999 budget is for
a six-year capital plan.
The Senate Finance Committee bill and the final Act plased an overall cap on the
number of FTE (full-time equivalent) positions for FY1999 at 32,900, exclusive of
intra-District positions. For FY1998, 32,837 positions had been approved. For
FY1999, the District had requested, and the House Appropriations Committee had
approved $34,169 FTE positions.54
The House, Senate, and conference committee largely approved the District’s
budget request, with one exception. The House bill and the final Act did not approve
the District’s request for $0.573 million for Advisory Neighborhood Commissions
(ANC) under the category of government direction and support. The conference
report states that the District may reprogram funds for FY1999 and may request ANC
funding for FY2000 to cover the ANCs, subject to improved management and
financial controls over the ANCs being enacted by the DC Council.
The Congress increased funding above the District’s request for three categories,
providing federal funds to finance the increase. Some, but not all, of the federal funds
appropriated for the District (listed in Table 3) are thus counted again in the
appropriation of the District of Columbia’s local funds (shown in Table 4). All of
these were federal payments included in the House-passed bill and the final Act, but
not in the Senate Appropriations Committee bill. This helps explain the difference in
amounts among the three versions of the bill for three line items. The $3 million for
waterfront improvements at the marina in southwest Washington is included in
economic development and regulation. The $1.2 million for the civilian complaint
review board and the $3.240 million for the fire-fighters pay raise are included in
public safety and justice. The federal payment for charter schools is included under
public education system; the amount was $20.391 million under the House bill and
$15.622 million under the final Act.
54
U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Appropriations. District of Columbia Appropriations Bill,
1999. Report to accompany H.R. 4380. H.Rept. 105-670. 105th Cong., 2nd Sess., August 3, 1998.
p. 34.
CRS-38
Table 4. District of Columbia Appropriations, District of Columbia
Funds
(in millions of dollars)
Appropriation of
DC Funds
FY1998
Enacted
DC’s
FY1999
Request
Senate
House
Approp.
Bill
Com. Bill
H.R. 4380
S. 2333
Final
Enacted
H.R.4328
P.L.
105-277
Division of Expenses, District of Columbia Funds
GENERAL FUND
Governmental direction and
support
105.177
164.717
164.144a
164.717
164.144a
Economic development and
regulation
120.072
156.039
159.039a
156.039
159.039a
Public safety and justice
529.739
751.346
755.786a
751.346
755.786a
Public education system
672.444
773.334
793.725a
773.334
788.956a
Human support services
1,718.939
1,514.751
1,514.751
1,514.751
1,514.751
Public works
241.934
266.912
266.912
266.912
266.912
Financing and other
454.773
451.623
451.623
451.623
[451.623]
Washington Convention
Center fundb
[5.400]
[5.400]
[5.400]
[5.400]
5.400
Repayment of loans and
interestb
[384.430]
[382.170]
[382.170]
[382.170]
382.170
Repayment of general fund
recovery debtb
[39.020]
[38.453]
[38.453]
[38.453]
38.453
Interest on short-term
borrowingb
[12.000]
[11.000]
[11.000]
[11.000]
11.000
Certificates of participation
(One Judiciary Square)b
[7.923]
[7.926]
[7.926]
[7.926]
7.926
Human Resources
Developmentb
[6.000]
[6.674]
[6.674]
[6.674]
6.674
Productivity savings
—
(10.000)
(10.000)
(10.000)
(10.000)
Receivership programs
—
318.979
318.979
318.979
318.979
3.220
7.840
7.840
7.840
7.840
201.090
—
—
—
—
4,395.541 4,422.799a
4,395.541
4,418.030
DC Financial Responsibility
and Management
Assistance Authority
Deficit reduction and
revitalization
Total, operating expenses,
general fund
4,047.388
ENTERPRISE FUNDS
Enterprise and other uses
15.725
—
—
—
—
Cable Television Enterprise
Fundc
[2.467]
2.108
2.108
2.108
2.108
CRS-39
Senate
House
Approp.
Bill
Com. Bill
H.R. 4380
S. 2333
Final
Enacted
H.R.4328
P.L.
105-277
FY1998
Enacted
DC’s
FY1999
Request
Public Service Commissione
[4.547]
5.026
5.026
5.026
5.026
c
Office of People’s Counsel
[2.428]
2.501
2.501
2.501
2.501
Office of Banking and
Financial Institutionsc
[0.600]
0.640
0.640
0.640
0.640
Department of Insurance
and Securities Regulationc
[5.683]
7.001
7.001
7.001
7.001
Water & Sewer Authority
and the Washington
Aqueduct
297.310
273.314
273.314
273.314
273.314
Lottery and charitable
games enterprise fund
213.500
225.200
225.200
225.200
225.200
Starplex fund (DC Sports
Commission)
5.936
8.751
8.751
8.751
8.751
DC General Hospital,
operating expenses d
52.684
66.764
66.764
66.764
66.764
DC Retirement Board
16.762
18.202
18.202
18.202
18.202
Correctional Industries
Fund
3.332
3.332
3.332
3.332
3.332
Washington Convention
Center Enterprise Fund d
41.000
48.139
48.139
48.139
48.139
Total, Enterprise Funds
646.249
660.978
660.978
660.978
660.978
a
5,056.519
5,079.008
1,711.161
1,711.161
1,711.161
6,767.680 6,794.938a
6,767.680
6,790.169
Appropriation of
DC Funds
Total, Operating Expenses
4,693.637
5,056.519 5,083.777
CAPITAL OUTLAY
General Fund e
269.330
Total, District of
Columbia Funds
4,962.967
1,711.161
Source: FY1998 enacted, DC budget request, and Senate Appropriations Committee numbers from
U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Appropriations. District of Columbia Appropriations Bill,
1999. Report to accompany S. 2333. S.Rept. 105-254. 105th Cong., 2nd Sess., July 21, 1998. p.
4-6. House numbers from: U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Appropriations. District of
Columbia Appropriations Bill, 1999. Report to accompany H.R. 4380. H.Rept. 105-670. 105th
Cong., 2nd Sess., August 3, 1998. p. 95-96. Final enacted from Conference Report on H.R. 4328,
Making Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1999
(H.Rept. 105-825). Printed in Congressional Record, Daily Edition, vol. 144, no. 149, October 19,
1998. p. H11342.
Notes: Amounts shown are net of intra-District funds. Numbers in brackets [] are included in a
preceding subtotal or reflect the aggregate amount of line items which follow.
CRS-40
a
See the text immediately preceding the table for an explanation of why the House Appropriations
Committee and final enacted amounts differ from the District’s budget request and the Senate
Appropriations Committee bill on these items.
b
These six line items were aggregated by the Senate Finance Committee as “Financing and other.”
The amounts for the individual line items are shown in brackets.
c
These five line items were aggregated for FY1998 as “Enterprise and other uses.”
d
The figures for DC General Hospital and the Washington Convention Center Enterprise Fund are
net amounts, equal to the gross amounts minus the transfers from the general fund enumerated in
the Appropriations Act.
e
The FY1998 capital outlay appropriation of $269 million was for one fiscal year. The District’s
FY1999 request of $1.7 billion was for 6 years. The authorization under the FY1999 appropriations
act is for two fiscal years; the capital funds remain available to be obligated until September 30,
2000.
The Federal Contribution
For FY1999, President Clinton did not recommend a “federal contribution” to
the District of Columbia and Congress did not choose to make one. The option to
make a federal contribution, however, remains available for future years under
authorizing law. The Revitalization Act officially repealed the “federal payment” to
the District of Columbia, but in its stead authorized a “federal contribution towards
the costs of the operations of the government of the Nation’s capital” (Subtitle G,
Section 11601 of P.L. 105-33).
The federal contribution, like the predecessor federal payment, can be thought
of as an unrestricted grant payment available for the District government’s various
spending needs, including repaying loans from the federal government or private
financial market. This is in contrast to the other federal payments made under the
FY1998 and FY1999 appropriations acts which take over or finance specific District
government functions.
The 1997 Revitalization Act authorized a specific dollar amount for the federal
contribution for FY1998 only — $190 million. For FY1999 and future years, the Act
left the dollar amount of the federal contribution to be determined. According to the
Act, after FY1998:
“...for each subsequent fiscal year, such amount as may be necessary for such
contribution.
In determining the amount appropriated pursuant to the authorization under this
paragraph, Congress shall take into account the findings described in paragraph
(1).”
The four elements cited as findings in paragraph (1) may be paraphrased as
follows:
! the congressionally imposed height limit on buildings and other limitations
relating to the federal presence in the District that may tend to reduce tax
revenues;
CRS-41
! the congressional prohibition against levying an income tax on nonresident
commuters, which limits the District’s ability to tax income earned in the
District of Columbia;
! the unreimbursed public service costs imposed by the federal government’s
presence; and
! the resulting high tax burden on District residents relative to residents of other
jurisdictions in the Washington, DC metropolitan area and other cities of
comparable size.
As with previous legislation authorizing the federal payment, the Revitalization
Act does not present a formula or methodology for translating the generalized notion
of compensating the District for the federal government’s presence into a predictable
dollar amount.55
Proposal to End Congressional Appropriation of DC Local Funds
Both the “federal payment” and the “federal contribution” to the District were
counted as part of the District’s local funds for appropriation purposes. This provided
grounds for the Congress to appropriate all of the District’s expenditures from local
funds (Table 4), in addition to appropriating payments of federal funds made on
behalf of the District (Table 3).
Citing the repeal of the authorization of the annual federal payment by the 1997
Revitalization Act, the Clinton Administration submitted to Congress, on May 18,
1998, a proposal that the Congress would no longer appropriate the part of the
District’s budget funded solely by local funds.56 Congress would, however, continue
to perform oversight for the District and make appropriations for those functions that
the federal government now funds directly as a result of the Revitalization Act, such
as the criminal justice system. During a “control year,” the procedures established by
the DCFRMA Act57 would generally continue. However, in cases where the District
and the control board disagree, the control board would be authorized to resolve the
disagreements, instead of sending two versions of the District’s budget to Congress.
On May 20, 1998, Representative Eleanor Holmes Norton, the Delegate to
Congress from the District of Columbia, introduced H.R. 3920, the District of
Columbia Legislative and Budget Autonomy Act of 1998. The bill would amend the
DC Home Rule Act. In addition to eliminating Congress’s role in approving the
District of Columbia’s budget, it would eliminate congressional review of newlypassed District laws.
55
All of these four factors have been cited at some time in previous legislation authorizing the
federal payment.
56
The proposal was transmitted in letters sent by Franklin D. Raines, Director of the U.S.
Office of Management and Budget, dated May 18, 1998, to the Speaker of the House and the
President of the Senate.
57
District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance (DCFRMA) Act
(P.L. 104-8).
CRS-42
Removing Congress’s authority to approve the DC budget would effectively
eliminate the role of the House and Senate DC appropriations subcommittees. The
subcommittees could be abolished by a decision of the rules committees.
For Additional Reading
CRS Products
CRS Report 95-628. Appropriations for FY1996: District of Columbia, by Suzanne
Cavanagh and Nonna A. Noto.
CRS Report 96-636. Appropriations for FY1997: District of Columbia, by Suzanne
Cavanagh and Nonna A. Noto.
CRS Report 97-213. Appropriations for FY1998: District of Columbia, by Nonna
A. Noto.
CRS Report 97-1004. DC Statehood: The Historical Context and Recent
Congressional Actions, by Garrine P. Laney.
CRS Report 98-109. District of Columbia Department of Corrections: Transfer of
Functions to the Federal Government, by JoAnne O’Bryant.
CRS Report 97-498. District of Columbia Revitalization: A Preliminary Review of
the President’s Plan, by Eugene Boyd, Coordinator.
CRS Report 97-766. District of Columbia Revitalization: Legislation Enacted by
the 105th Congress, by Eugene Boyd, Coordinator.
CRS Report 97-596. District of Columbia Unfunded Pension Liabilities:
Background, Issues, and Options, by CRS Pension Team.
CRS Report 97-50. Education Vouchers: The Constitutional Standards, by David
M. Ackerman.
CRS Report 95-344. Federal Support of School Choice: Background and Options,
by Wayne C. Riddle and James B. Stedman.
CRS Issue Brief 98035. School Choice: Current Legislation, by Wayne Riddle and
James Stedman. (Updated regularly)
Other References
Congressional Record, Daily Edition, vol. 144, no. 149, October 19, 1998. Contains
the Conference Report on H.R. 4328, Making Omnibus Consolidated and
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Fiscal Year 1999 (H.Rept. 105825), p. H11044-H11290, and the Joint Explanatory Statement of the
Committee of Conference, p. H11290-H11545. District of Columbia
CRS-43
appropriations: legislative language on
statement on p. H.11335-H11355.
p. H11076-H11084; explanatory
Government of the District of Columbia. FY1999 Baseline Budget and Financial
Plan: Connecting Resources to Results. Submitted by the DC Office of Budget
and Planning. Washington, March 1998.
—— FY1999 Operating Budget and Financial Plan: Connecting Resources to
Results. Prepared for the Congress of the United States. Submitted by the
Mayor of the District of Columbia, the Council of the District of Columbia, and
the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance
Authority. Washington, June 1, 1998.
—— FY1999 to FY2004 Capital Improvement Plan and FY1999 Capital Budget:
Connecting Resources to Results. Volume I, and Volume II: Highway Trust
Fund. Submitted by the Mayor of the District of Columbia, the Council of the
District of Columbia, and the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and
Management Assistance Authority. Washington, June 1, 1998.
U.S. Congress. House. Requests for FY1999 Budget Amendments. Communication
from the President of the United States Transmitting His Requests for FY1999
Budget Amendments for the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense,
and Transportation; the Environmental Protection Agency; International
Assistance Programs; the District of Columbia; and, the Postal Service, Pursuant
to 31 U.S.C. 1107. 105th Cong., 2d Sess., H.Doc. 105-255, May 20, 1998.
Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1998.
—— Making Omnibus Consolidated and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations
for Fiscal Year 1999. Conference Report to Accompany H.R. 4328. H.Rept.
105-825, October 19, 1998. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1998. District
of Columbia Appropriations Act, 1999, on p. 126-56.
U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Appropriations. District of Columbia
Appropriations Bill, 1999. Report to accompany H.R. 4380. H.Rept. 105-670.
105th Cong., 2nd Sess., August 3, 1998.
U.S. Congress. House. Committee on Government Reform and Oversight.
Subcommittee on the District of Columbia. Fiscal Year 1997 District of
Columbia Audit Report and CFO Oversight. Hearing, 105th Cong., 2d Sess.,
February 11, 1998. Serial No. 105-126. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off.,
1998.
U.S. Congress. Senate. Committee on Appropriations. District of Columbia
Appropriations Bill, 1999. Report to accompany S. 2333. S.Rept. 105-254.
105th Cong., 2nd Sess., July 21, 1998.
U.S. Executive Office of the President. Office of Management and Budget. Budget
of the United States Government, Fiscal Year 1999. Appendix. Transmitted to
Congress February 2, 1998. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1998. pp.
1048-63. (H.Doc. 105-177.)
CRS-44
U.S. President, 1992- (Clinton). D.C. Budget Request, FY 1999. Message from the
President of the United States Transmitting the District of Columbia’s Fiscal
Year 1999 Budget Request Act. 105th Cong., 2d Sess., H.Doc. 105-294, July
29, 1998. Washington, U.S. Govt. Print. Off., 1998.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.