Appropriations for FY2005: District of Columbia
Released: 2004-12-22T00:00:00

Summary:
On February 2, 2004, the Bush Administration released its FY2005 budget recommendations. The Administration's proposed budget includes $560.4 million in federal payments to the Districtof Columbia. A major portion of the President's proposed federal payments and assistance to theDistrict involves the courts and criminal justice system. This includes funding for the Court Servicesand Offender Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia, Defender Services, and the courts. These three functions (court operations, defender services, and offender supervision) represent$457.1 million, or 81.6%, of the President's proposed $560.4 million in federal payments to theDistrict of Columbia.
On May 14, 2004, the District's city council approved the city's $8.2 billion budget forFY2005. The city's proposed budget includes $2 billion for enterprise funds and $6.2 billion ingeneral fund operating expenses. The proposed budget also included a request for $1.03 billion inspecial federal payments, which is substantially higher than the $560 million proposed by thePresident.
The District budget request also includes $165 million for the Washington Metropolitan AreaTransit Authority's capital fund, a $162 million increase above the amount appropriated in FY2004,and $102 million in special federal payments in support of emergency preparedness activities --including $80 million for bioterrorism preparedness, $15 million for emergency planning andsecurity, and $7 million for a unified communications center for regional emergencies.
On July 7, 2004, the House Appropriations Subcommittee on the District of Columbiaconducted a markup of the District of Columbia Appropriations Act for FY2005 and forwarded theunnumbered draft bill to the House Appropriations Committee. One week later, on July 14, 2004,the House Appropriations Committee completed its markup of the bill, which includes $560 millionin special federal payments for the District of Columbia.
On July 20, 2004, the House considered and passed H.R. 4850 , the District ofColumbia Appropriations Act for FY2005. The measure was accompanied by H.Rept. 108-610 . OnSeptember 21, the Senate Appropriations Committee reported S. 2826 , its version ofthe District of Columbia Appropriations Act for FY2005. The measure was accompanied by S.Rept.108-354 , and includes $560 million in special federal payments to the city. On October 6, 2004, theHouse and Senate passed the conference committee version of H.R. 4850.
On October 18, 2004, the President signed P.L. 108-335 , the District of ColumbiaAppropriations Act for FY2005. The act includes $560 million in special federal payments andapproves the District's $6.3 billion operating budget for FY2005. On December 8, 2004, thePresident signed P. L. 108-447, a consolidated appropriations act for FY2005, which includes aprovision amending charter school-related language included in P.L. 108-335 . This report will beupdated as events warrant.

subsections: section_title: Most Recent Developments
paragraphs: On December 8, 2004, the President signed P.L. 108-447 , a consolidated appropriations actfor FY2005. The act includes a provision amending charter school-related language included in theDistrict of Columbia Appropriations Act for FY2005, P.L. 108-335 , which was signed by thePresident on October 18, 2004. P.L. 108-335 includes $560 million in special federalpayments and approves the District's $6.3 billion operating budget for FY2005. On October 6, 2004,by unanimous consent the Senate approved the conference committee version of H.R. 4850 , the District of Columbia Appropriations Act for FY2005. The House passed the act by a voteof 377 to 36 on the same day. On September 22, 2004, the full Senate passed by voice vote theSenate version of H.R. 4850 after substituting the language of S. 2826 . OnJuly 20, 2004, the House approved H.R. 4850 by a vote of 371-54. On September 7, 2004,the President transmitted to Congress the District of Columbia budget request for FY2005, whichwas approved on May 14, 2004, by the District of Columbia City Council following extensivenegotiations with the mayor over proposed budget cuts. 
 Table 1. Status of District of Columbia Appropriations, FY2005, P.L. 108-335
section_title: Budget Request
subsections: section_title: FY2005: The President's Budget Request
paragraphs: On February 2, 2004, the Bush Administration released its FY2005 budgetrecommendations. The Administration's proposed budget includes $560.4 millionin federal payments to the District of Columbia. (1) A majorportion of the President's proposed federal payments and assistance to the Districtinvolves the courts and criminal justice system. This includes $187.5 million for theCourt Services and Offender Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia, anindependent federal agency that has assumed management responsibility for theDistrict's pretrial services, adult probation, and parole supervision functions. Inaddition, the Administration requests $228.1 million in support of court operations,and $41.5 million for Defender Services. These three functions (court operations,defender services, and offender supervision) represent $457.1 million, or 81.6%, ofthe President's proposed $560.4 million in federal payments to the District ofColumbia (see Table 2 ). 
section_title: FY2005: District's Budget Request
paragraphs: On May 14, 2004, the District's city council unanimously approved the city's$8.2 billion budget for FY2005, (2) and forwarded it to the President for review,approval, and transmittal to the Congress. (3) The proposed budget includes a request for $1.03billion in special federal payments. The city's proposed operating budget of $6.2billion includes a $50 million cash reserve fund. In addition, the District's proposedbudget would increase local funding for public education by $82.6 million, whileseeking $60.05 million in special federal payments for public schools ($13 million),charter schools ($13 million), school vouchers ($14 million), public school safety andsecurity ($15 million) and public school enhancement ($5.05 million) activities. Theproposed budget would also increase funding for general government support by$132.4 million and human support services by $172.8 million. 
The District has also requested $23 million for the District's college tuitionassistance program, a proposed increase of $5 million above the federal government'sFY2004 commitment. (4) In addition, the District requested $165 million forthe Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority's capital fund. This is $162million more than appropriated in FY2004. The District has also requested $102million in special federal payments to support emergency preparedness activities,including $80 million for bioterrorism preparedness, $15 million for emergencyplanning and security, and $7 million for the unified communication center forregional emergencies. 
section_title: FY2005: Section 302(b) Suballocation
paragraphs: Section 302(a) of the Congressional Budget Act requires that the House andSenate pass a concurrent budget resolution establishing an aggregate spending ceiling(budget authority and outlays) for each fiscal year. These ceilings are used by Houseand Senate appropriators as a blueprint for allocating funds. Section 302(b) of theCongressional Budget Act of 1974 requires appropriations committees in the Houseand Senate to subdivide their Section 302(a) allocation of budget authority andoutlays among the 13 appropriations subcommittees. The House AppropriationsCommittee approved a Section 302(b) suballocation of $560 million in budgetauthority for FY2005 for the District of Columbia -- 54% of the amount requestedby the District. The Senate Appropriations Committee has also allocated $560million in budget authority for the District of Columbia. It published its revised Section 302(b) suballocations on September 14, 2004 ( S.Rept. 108-338 ).
section_title: Congressional Action on the Budget
paragraphs: Congress not only appropriates federal payments to the District to fundcertain activities but also reviews the District's entire budget, including theexpenditure of local funds. The House and Senate Appropriations Committees mustapprove -- and may modify -- the District's budget. House and Senate versions of theDistrict budget are reconciled in a joint conference committee and must be agreed toby the House and the Senate. After this final action, the District's budget isforwarded to the President, who can sign it into law or veto it.
House Version of H.R.4850. On July 7, 2004, the House AppropriationsSubcommittee on the District of Columbia conducted a markup of the District ofColumbia Appropriations Act for FY2005 and forwarded the bill to the fullAppropriations Committee for its consideration. On July 14, 2004, the HouseAppropriations Committee ordered reported the unnumbered draft bill, whichincluded $560 million in special federal payments for the District of Columbia. Thebill was brought to the House floor for consideration and passage on July 20, 2004,and was designated H.R. 4850 . As passed by the House, H.R.4850 recommended $25.6 million for the city college tuition assistanceprogram, an $8.6 million increase above the program's FY2004 funding level and$2.6 million more than originally sought by the District. The increase was sought inorder to cover rising tuition cost and program expansion. The bill does not includefunding for inauguration expenses, but does recommend $40 million for publicschools, charter schools, and school vouchers. In addition, the bill includes $6million for public school libraries. 
House Bill General Provisions. The House version of the bill includes several provisions that District officials wantto eliminate or modify, including those related to medical marijuana, abortion, andneedle exchange. In previous years, during consideration of past District ofColumbia appropriation acts, city officials have asked Congress to eliminate theprovision banning the use of medical marijuana. They have also sought to wincongressional approval for the lifting of the prohibition on the use of District fundsfor abortion services, and they have sought to eliminate the provision prohibiting theuse of federal or District funds in support of a needle exchange program. Congresshas maintained the restrictions and prohibitions on the use of federal and Districtfunds for medical marijuana, abortion, and needle exchange. 
At the urging of the chairman of the District Appropriations Subcommittee,Representative Frelinghuysen, the draft legislation, which was approved by theHouse Appropriations Committee on July 14, 2004, did not include any new riders. During the appropriations committee markup of the bill, Representative Fattahintroduced, then withdrew, an amendment that would have transferred to publiccharter schools the unused portion of the $14 million Congress appropriated inFY2004 for the school voucher program, which provides up to $7,500 in scholarshipsto low-income students in underperforming public schools to assist them in coveringthe cost of private elementary and secondary schools. In addition, RepresentativeMoran of Virginia asked that language be included in the report accompanying thebill urging the court system to ensure prompt payment of court-appointed attorneys. During consideration of the bill, Representative Moran noted that at least $1.5million is owed to approximately 30 court-appointed attorneys. He also noted thatdelayed payments to court-appointed attorneys had been an issue that Congress hadaddressed during consideration and passage of District appropriation acts forprevious years. (5) The Committee did approve an amendment to thereport accompanying the bill praising the DC Streets Partnership. The reportlanguage, which was offered by Representative Culberson, noted the successful useof performance-based contracting in the management of the 75 miles of the NationalHighway System in the District of Columbia by a private contractor. (6) 
On July 20, 2004, the House considered and approved the District ofColumbia Appropriations Act for FY2005, H.R. 4850 . Beforeapproving the bill and its accompanying report ( H.Rept. 108-610 ), the Houseconsidered two amendments to the bill. Representative Tancredo introduced, thenwithdrew, an amendment prohibiting non-citizens from voting in District elections. The amendment was withdrawn after Representative Tancredo received assurancesfrom Representative Davis that any action by District officials allowing non-citizensto vote in District elections would be blocked by the House Committee onGovernment Reform, a committee he chairs. A second amendment was offered byRepresentative Hefley. The amendment, which was defeated, called for a 1% ($5.6million) cut in the District's FY2005 appropriations as part of a deficit reductionstrategy. For a detailed review of the general provisions included in the House bill,H.R. 4850, see CRS Report RL32510(pdf) , District of Columbia AppropriationsAct for FY2005: Comparison of the General Provisions of P.L. 108-199and H.R. 4850 , by [author name scrubbed].
Senate Version of H.R. 4850 (FormerlyS. 2826). On September 21, 2004, the SenateAppropriations Committee reported S. 2826 , the District of ColumbiaAppropriations Act for FY2005. One day later, the full Senate unanimously approvedthe bill by voice vote after striking the language of House version of H.R. 4850 and substituting the language of S. 2826. TheSenate bill, which was accompanied by S.Rept. 108-354 , would have appropriated$560 million in special federal payments to the District in support of a number ofactivities and policies. As passed by the Senate, the bill recommended $21.1 millionfor the city college tuition assistance program, a $4.1 million increase above theprogram's FY2004 funding level, and $4.5 million less than approved by the House. The increase was sought in order to cover rising tuition cost and program expansion. However, during committee consideration of the bill, Senator Durbin noted that theprogram has $9 million in unspent funds from FY2004. He argued that the cityshould provide a $1 match in local funds for every $2 in federal assistance. According to Delegate Norton, the District retained the $9 million to ensure thatfunds were available for the fall and winter semesters.
Like its House counterpart, the bill did not include funding for inaugurationexpenses, but did recommend $40 million for public schools, charter schools, andschool vouchers. The Senate bill, unlike the House bill, sets aside a pool of fundsfor high-performing public ($5 million) and charter ($2 million) schools. In addition,the bill would have appropriated $195 million for court operations. This is $7.1million less than recommended by the House and $33 million less than requested bythe city and the Administration. The bill would also have appropriated $32.5 millionto the District's Chief Financial Office, acting as a pass-through agent, for allocationto various education, security, economic development, and health initiatives. Thisis $13.5 million more than recommended by the House. In past appropriationsmeasures funds allocated to the CFO have been earmarked for allocation to specificentities and activities. Neither the House nor the Senate bill identifies amounts to beawarded to specific activities or entities. The report accompanying the Senate billdoes note its intent that some portion of the amount to be awarded to the CFO beallocated to Children's National Medical Center for new pediatric intensive care andneonatal intensive care units. 
Senate Bill General Provision. The Senate bill (formerly S. 2826 ), as reported to and passed by theSenate, would maintain the restrictions and prohibitions on the use of federal andDistrict funds for medical marijuana and abortion, but lifts the previous prohibitionon the use of District funds for a needle exchange program. The bill would also haveallowed District funds to be used to administer the District's domestic partners healthcare benefits program. It would have continued to cap attorney's fees in casesbrought against the District's public school system under the Individuals withDisabilities Education Act (IDEA). In addition, the Senate version of H.R. 4850 would have removed several prohibitions on the use ofDistrict funds for lobbying and advocacy activities related to statehood and votingrepresentation in Congress for residents of the District of Columbia.
Conference Version of H.R. 4850, P.L.108-335. On October 5, 2004, House and Senateconferees reached agreement on H.R. 4850 and its accompanyingconference report ( H.Rept. 108-734 ). The conference committee agreed to $560million in federal special payments to the city and approved the city's $8.2 billionbudget for FY2005. The $560 million in special federal payments is $19 millionmore than appropriated in FY2004. Included in the $560 million in special federalpayments was $25.6 million for a college tuition assistance plan. This is $8.7 millionmore than appropriated in FY2004. The majority (73.3%) of the $560 million is tobe allocated to criminal justice activities including $190 million for court operations,$38.5 million for defender services, $180 million for court services and offendersupervision activities, and $1.3 million in support of the Criminal JusticeCoordinating Committee. In FY2004, these activities accounted for 68.6% of the$541 million in special federal payments awarded to the city. 
In addition, $40 million in special federal payments are allocated to publicschools ($13 million), public charter schools ($13 million), and a school choiceprogram ($14 million) that provides up to $7,500 in vouchers to low-income studentsto cover tuition and related cost for private elementary and secondary schools. Congress also earmarked an additional $10.6 million, made available through theOffice of the Chief Financial Officer of the District of Columbia (CFO), in supportof education and cultural enrichment programs for the District's school-age children. It also provided $25.6 million in special federal payments for the city's college tuitionassistance program. These combined sums total $76.2 million in special federalpayments for elementary, secondary, and higher education programs and activitiesincluding teacher training, tuition assistance, tutoring, mentoring, and culturalenrichment programs.
Conference General Provisions. The conference version of H.R. 4850 , as reported and passed by theHouse maintains the restrictions and prohibitions on the use of federal and Districtfunds for medical marijuana, abortion, and a needle exchange program. The actallows District, but not federal, funds to be used to administer the District's domesticpartners health care benefits program. It continues the $4,000 cap on attorney's feesin cases brought against the District's public school system under the Individuals withDisabilities Education Act (IDEA). In addition, the conference version of H.R.4850 would retain several provisions included in the House version of theact and the District's FY2004 appropriations act prohibiting the use of District andfederal funds for lobbying and advocacy activities related to statehood and votingrepresentation in Congress for residents of the District of Columbia with oneexception. The conference version of H.R. 4850 would allow District, butnot federal, funds to be used for salaries, expenses, or other costs related to statehoodlobbying efforts associated with the offices of United States Senator or United StatesRepresentative under section 4(d) of the District of Columbia StatehoodConstitutional Convention Initiatives of 1979 (D.C. Law 3-171; D.C. Official Code,sec. 1-123).
The conference version of H.R. 4850 also includes severalcharter school-related provisions previously included in Senate version of the act. The provisions:
Allow the Office of Public Charter School Financing andSupport to use federal credit enhancement or direct loan funds to provide leaseguarantees for charter schools;
Amend the DC School Reform Act of 1995 to encourage publicschools and independent schools to convert to charter schools;
Allow for a one-year transition period for public schoolteachers whose schools are converted to charter schools;
Allow public schools that covert to charter schools to retainoccupancy of the facility after converting to a charter school;
Give charter schools preference in the acquisition of surplusschool facilities;
Allow for a 25-year lease period for city-owned property leasedto charter schools;
Require the city charter schools chartering authority to includean annual report to Congress;
Call for a biennial evaluation by GAO of charter schools,identifying nine evaluation criteria, with the first interim report due to be submittedto Congress, the mayor, the council and the CFO by May 1, 2005;and
Require the Charter School Board to maintain its accountsaccording to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles for Not-for-ProfitOrganizations; the board must contract for an audit of its financial statement by anindependent certified public accountant.
General Provision Amendments Included in P.L.108-447. On December 8, 2004, the President signed a consolidatedappropriations act, P.L. 108-447 . The act includes a provision, Section 103, TitleI, Division I, amending the District's capital budget and several charter school-relatedgeneral provisions included in P.L. 108-335 . The act would amend the followinggeneral provisions: 
Section 340. Public Charter School Financing. The proposedprovision is a technical amendment that clarifies the language of the original Section340(a) of P.L. 108-335 . It amends Section 603(e)(3)(E) of the Student LoanMarketing Association Reorganization Act (20 U.S.C. 1155(e)(3)(E)) by adding anew subclause (IV) allowing public charter schools to obtain lease guarantees inaccordance with rules developed by the District of Columbia Office of Public CharterSchool Financing.
Section 342. Repeal of Section 342 and Restoration ofPrevious Provisions. This provision restores the language of the affected sectionsas if they had not been amended by Section 342 of P.L. 108-335 . Eliminatingsubsection (a) restores the requirement that petitions seeking the conversion of apublic school to a public charter school submit to the authorizing board the signaturesof two-thirds of the parents of minors attending the public school, two-thirds of theadults attending a public school (the provision does not provide a definition of adultschool, but it is assumed to be students 18-years or older), and two-thirds of theteachers of the public school in support such a conversion. Eliminating subsection(b) repeals the provision governing the retention of teachers at converted charterschools and brings such teachers under an existing provision that allows all publicschool teachers to take a two-year leave of absence without pay to teach at publiccharter schools. The two-year leave of absence can be indefinitely extended fortwo-year periods. Eliminating subsection (c) gives public charter schools the rightof first offer, but not first preference, in leasing or purchasing former and currentschools facilities. It keeps in place a provision that former public school facilitiesmay only be conveyed for conversion to public charter schools if doing so does notresult in significant revenue loss to the city that would have been obtained from otherdispositions or uses of the facility or property.
Section 347. Charter School Board Operations. AmendsDistrict of Columbia School Reform Act of 1995 (D.C. Code 38-1802.14). Subsection (f) requires the Charter School Board to maintain its accounts accordingto Generally Accepted Accounting Principles for Not-for-Profit Organizations. Theboard must contract for an audit of its financial statement by an independent certifiedpublic accountant. Findings are to be forwarded to the CFO, the mayor, the council,and appropriate congressional committees. Subsection (h) grants the Public CharterSchool Board authority to solicit, award, and execute contracts independently of theOffice of Contracting and Procurement and the Chief Procurement Officer. Nothingunder Chapter 3 of Title 2 of the District Code governing Procurement Practices forthe District government shall affect the authority of the Board under subsection(h).
 Table 2. District of Columbia Special Federal Payments Funds: FY2005 Appropriations
(in millions of dollars)
 Table 3. District of Columbia GeneralFunds
(in millions of dollars)
section_title: Key Policy Issues
subsections: section_title: Needle Exchange
paragraphs: Whether to continue a needle exchange program funded with federal or Districtfunds was one of several key policy issues that Congress considered in reviewing theDistrict's appropriations for FY2005. The controversy surrounding funding a needleexchange program touches on issues of home rule, public health policy, andgovernment sanctioning and facilitating the use of illegal drugs. Proponents of aneedle exchange program contend that such programs reduce the spread of HIVamong illegal drug users by reducing the incidence of shared needles. Opponents ofthese efforts contend that such programs amount to the government sanctioningillegal drugs by supplying drug-addicted persons with the tools to use them. Inaddition, they contend that public health concerns raised about the spread of AIDSand HIV through shared contaminated needles should be addressed through drugtreatment and rehabilitation programs. Another view in the debate focuses on theissue of home rule and the city's ability to use local funds to institute such programsfree from congressional actions.
The prohibition on the use of federal and District funds for a needle exchangeprogram was first approved by Congress as Section 170 of the District of ColumbiaAppropriations Act for FY1999, P.L. 105-277 . The 1999 act did allow privatefunding of needle exchange programs. The District of Columbia Appropriations Actfor FY2001, P.L. 106-522 , continued the prohibition on the use of federal andDistrict funds for a needle exchange program; it also restricted the location ofprivately funded needle exchange activities. Section 150 of the District of ColumbiaAppropriations Act for FY2001 made it unlawful to distribute any needle or syringefor the hypodermic injection of any illegal drug in any area in the city that is within1,000 feet of a public elementary or secondary school, including any public charterschool. The provision was deleted during congressional consideration and passageof the District of Columbia Appropriations Act of FY2002, P.L. 107-96 . The act alsoincluded a provision that allows the use of private funds for a needle exchangeprogram, but it prohibits the use of both District and federal funds for such activities. At present, one entity, Prevention Works, a private nonprofit AIDS awareness andeducation program, operates a privately funded needle exchange program. TheFY2002 District of Columbia Appropriations Act requires such entities to track andaccount for the use of public and private funds. 
During consideration of the FY2004 District of Columbia Appropriations Act, District officials unsuccessfully sought to lift the prohibition on the use of Districtfunds for needle exchange programs. A Senate provision, which was not adopted, proposed prohibiting only the use of federal funds for a needle exchange programand allowing the use of District funds. The House and final conference versions ofthe FY2004 allowed the use of private funds for needle exchange programs andrequired private and public entities that receive federal or District funds in supportof other activities or programs to account for the needle exchange funds separately. 
The President's budget proposal for FY2005 included a provision that wouldcontinue to prohibit the use of District and federal funds in support of a needleexchange program. The House version of the District of Columbia AppropriationsAct for FY2005, H.R. 4850 , included a provision that would retain thecurrent law prohibiting the use of federal and District funds for a needle exchangeprogram. The Senate version of the bill would have allowed District, but not federal,funds to be used for such a program. The conference version of the act prohibits theuse of District and federal funds for a needle exchange program. 
section_title: Medical Marijuana
paragraphs: The city's medical marijuana initiative is another issue that engenderscontroversy. The District of Columbia Appropriations Act for FY1999, P.L.105-277 , included a provision that prohibited the city from counting ballots of avoter-approved initiative that would have allowed the medical use of marijuana toassist persons suffering debilitating health conditions and diseases, including cancerand HIV infection. 
Congress's power to prohibit the counting of a medical marijuana ballot initiativewas challenged in a suit filed by the D.C. Chapter of the American Civil LibertiesUnion (ACLU). On September 17, 1999, District Court Judge Richard Roberts ruledthat Congress, despite its legislative responsibility for the District under Article I,Section 8, of the Constitution, did not possess the power to stifle or prevent politicalspeech, which included the ballot initiative. (7) This rulingallowed the city to tally the votes on the November 1998 ballot initiative. To preventthe implementation of the initiative, Congress had 30 days to pass a resolution ofdisapproval from the date the medical marijuana ballot initiative (Initiative 59) wascertified by the Board of Elections and Ethics. Language prohibiting theimplementation of the initiative was included in P.L. 106-113 , the District ofColumbia Appropriations Act for FY2000. Opponents of the provision contend thatsuch congressional actions undercut the concept of home rule.
The District of Columbia Appropriations Act for FY2002, P.L. 107-96 , includeda provision that continued to prohibit the District government from implementing theinitiative. Congress's power to block the implementation of the initiative was againchallenged in the courts. On December 18, 2001, two groups, the Marijuana PolicyProject and Medical Marijuana Initiative Committee, filed suit in U.S. District Court,seeking injunctive relief in an effort to put another medical marijuana initiative onthe November 2002 ballot. The District's Board of Elections and Ethics ruled thata congressional rider that has been included in the general provisions of each Districtappropriations act since 1998 prohibits it from using public funds to do preliminarywork that would put the initiative on the ballot.
On March 28, 2002, a U.S. district court judge ruled that the congressional banon the use of public funds to put such a ballot initiative before the voters wasunconstitutional. (8) The judge stated that the effect of the amendmentwas to restrict the plaintiff's First Amendment rights to engage in political speech. The decision was appealed by the Justice Department and on September 19, 2002,the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed the ruling ofthe lower court without comment. The appeals court issued its ruling on September19, 2002, which was the deadline for printing ballots of the November 2002 generalelection.
The President's budget proposal for FY2005 would have continued to prohibitthe implementation of the medical marijuana ballot initiative, while the Districtbudget for FY2005 does not include language related to the implementation of theinitiative. The House, Senate, and conference versions of the District of ColumbiaAppropriations Act for FY2005, H.R. 4850 , included a provision thatcontinues to prohibit the implementation of the medical marijuana ballot initiativeand the decriminalization of marijuana possession for medical use. 
section_title: Abortion Provision
paragraphs: The public funding of abortion services for District of Columbia residents is aperennial issue debated by Congress during its annual deliberations on District ofColumbia appropriations. District officials cite the prohibition on the use of Districtfunds as another example of congressional intrusion into local matters. The Districtof Columbia Appropriations Act for FY2002, P.L. 107-96 , included a provisionprohibiting the use of federal or District funds for abortion services, except in caseswhere the life of the mother is endangered, or the pregnancy is the result of rape orincest. This prohibition has been in place since 1995, when Congress approved theDistrict of Columbia Appropriations Act for FY1996, P.L. 104-134 .
Since 1979, with the passage of the District of Columbia Appropriations Act of1980, P.L. 96-93 , Congress has placed some limitation or prohibition on the use ofpublic funds for abortion services for District residents. From 1979 to 1988,Congress restricted the use of federal funds for abortion services to cases where themother's life would be endangered, or the pregnancy resulted from rape and incest. The District was free to use District funds for abortion services. 
When Congress passed the District of Columbia Appropriations Act for FY1989, P.L. 100-462 , it restricted the use of District and federal funds for abortion servicesto cases where the mother's life would be endangered if the pregnancy were taken toterm. The inclusion of District funds, and the elimination of rape or incest asqualifying conditions for public funding of abortion services, was endorsed byPresident Reagan, who threatened to veto the District's appropriations act if theabortion provision was not modified. (9) In 1989, President Bush twice vetoed the District'sFY1990 appropriations act over the abortion issue. He signed P.L. 101-168 afterinsisting that Congress include language prohibiting the use of District revenues topay for abortion services except in cases where the mother's life wasendangered. (10) 
The District successfully sought the removal of the provision limiting Districtfunding of abortion services when Congress considered and passed the District ofColumbia Appropriations Act for FY1994, P.L. 103-127 . The FY1994 act alsoreinstated rape and incest as qualifying circumstances allowing for the public fundingof abortion services. The District's success was short-lived, however, the District ofColumbia Appropriations Act for FY1996, P.L. 104-134 , and subsequent District ofColumbia appropriations acts limited the use of District and federal funds forabortion services to cases where the mother's life is endangered or cases where thepregnancy was the result of rape or incest. The final version of the FY2004appropriations for the District of Columbia included a provision that continued to restrict the use of District and federal funds for abortion services except in cases ofrape or incest, or when the life of the mother is endangered. 
The District's FY2005 appropriation bill, as approved by the House, the Senate,and the conference committee, continues to prohibit the use of both District andfederal funds for abortion services, except in instances of rape, incest, or whenpregnancy endangers the health of the mother.
section_title: Health Care Benefits Expansion Act (Domestic Partners Program)
paragraphs: P.L. 107-96 includes a provision lifting the congressional prohibition on the useof District funds to implement its Health Care Benefits Expansion Act. (11) Theprovision permits unmarried heterosexual and homosexual couples to register asdomestic partners. Under the Health Care Benefits Expansion Act, which wasapproved by the city's elected leadership in 1992, an unmarried person who registersas a domestic partner of a District employee hired after 1987 may be added to theDistrict employee's health care policy for an additional charge. The act had not beenimplemented until 2002 because of a congressional prohibition first included in thegeneral provisions of District of Columbia Appropriations Act for FY1994. 
The city's Health Care Benefits Expansion Act allows two cohabiting,unmarried, and unrelated individuals to register as domestic partners with the Districtfor the purpose of securing certain health and family related benefits, includinghospital visiting rights. Under the law, District government employees enrolled inthe District of Columbia Employees Health Benefits Program are allowed to purchasefamily health insurance coverage that would cover the employee's family members,including domestic partners. In addition, a District employee registered as a domesticpartner may assume the additional cost of the family health insurance coverage forfamily members, which would include the employee's domestic partner.
Opponents of the act maintain that it devalues the institution of marriage, andthat the act grants unmarried gay and heterosexual couples the same standing asmarried couples. Congressional proponents of lifting the ban on the use of Districtfunds argue that the implementation of the act is a question of home rule and localautonomy. Supporters of health care benefits for domestic partners note that as of2003, 10 states, 175 local governments, and more than 7,000 companies, colleges,and universities offered health insurance benefits to domestic partners. (12) 
The House, Senate, and final conference versions of H.R. 4850 ,consistent with the provision first included in the District's FY2002 AppropriationsAct, include a general provision that allows the use of District funds to administer theprogram. There has been some speculation in the press that the issue of gay marriagewould find its way into consideration of the city's FY2005 appropriations. (13) At leastone bill, H.R. 4773 , would define marriage in the District of Columbiaas a union between a man and a woman.
section_title: Gun Control Repeal
paragraphs: During the 108th Congress, legislation was introduced in the House( H.R. 3193 ) and the Senate ( S. 1414 ) that would haverepealed a number of long-standing gun control measures passed by the District ofColumbia's city council. The House and Senate bills would have prohibited theDistrict government from passing any laws or regulations that exceed federal guncontrol measures or that would discourage, restrict, or prohibit private ownership anduse of firearms. 
Both bills would also have repealed District laws that:
ban the sale and possession of handguns and semiautomaticweapons;
prohibit the sale or possession of firearms except for threespecific types of the firearms (sawed-off shotguns, machine guns, and short-barreledrifles); 
limit the possession of handgun ammunition; and
require all firearm registrants, except law enforcementpersonnel, to keep any firearm unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lockor similar device unless the firearm is kept at the registrant's place of business, or isbeing used for lawful recreational purposes within the District ofColumbia.
In addition, the bills would have repealed provisions governing the registration offirearms in the District, including those requiring gun registration applicants to bephotographed and fingerprinted and to meet certain age thresholds. The bills wouldhave also repealed District laws prohibiting the possession of a firearm by personswho have been judged to be mentally or physically unfit, persons who have beenconvicted or are under indictment for the commission of a violent crime, and personsconvicted of drug dealing.
The bills were referred to the House Committee on Government Reform and theSenate Government Affairs Committee. Neither the House nor the Senatecommittees of jurisdiction held hearings or took any action on the respective bills. According to press reports, it was anticipated that Senator Craig would include thelanguage of S. 1414 , which was introduced by Senator Hatch, in theDistrict's FY2005 appropriations measure. (14) SenatorCraig noted that he would have offered his amendment only if he had sufficient votesin committee to secure its passage. The bill, which was reported by the SenateAppropriations Committee on September 21, 2004 and approved by the Senate onSeptember 22, 2004, did not include any language repealing the city's gun controllaws. Representative Souder's bill ( H.R. 3193 ), with 228 cosponsors,was brought to the House floor for a vote on September 29, 2004. The bill passedthe House by a vote of 250 to 171. (15) The bill was forwarded to the Senate forconsideration, but no action was taken. 
The District's mayor and its congressional delegate have voiced opposition to therepeal of the city's gun control measures, characterizing the bills as an "assault onhome rule" and warning that repealing the city's gun control measures wouldjeopardize public safety by increasing the availability of weapons. Supporters of therepeal of the city's gun control measures counter that the bill is intended not as anintrusion on home rule, but rather as an effort to restore to District residents theconstitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms. In addition, supporters ofthe bills note that the District's gun control measures have been ineffective instemming the city's crime rate.