On November 22, 2000, President Clinton signed P.L. 106-522 (formerly H.R. 5633 ), an act appropriating funds for the District of Columbia forFY2001. In one of the actions it took between election day on November 7, 2000,and the Thanksgiving holiday, the House and the Senate approved H.R. 5633 by unanimous consent. An earlier version of the act, H.R. 4942 ,was approved by the Senate on October 27, 2000, and by the House on October 26,2000. However, the conference version of H.R. 4942 included fundingfor Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State. The President in a letter datedOctober 26, 2000, indicated that he would veto an otherwise acceptable District ofColumbia Appropriations Act because of objections surrounding the inclusion ofCommerce, Justice, and State appropriations to the act. These include issuesrelating to immigration, tobacco litigation, hate crimes, the sale and display of socialsecurity numbers, Violent Crime Reduction Trust Fund, and number of riderscharacterized by the Administration as anti-environmental and anti-competitive. On September 27, 2000, the Senate passed its version of H.R. 4942 , theDistrict of Columbia Appropriations Act forFY2001, two-weeks after the Houseapproved its version of the bill on September 14, 2000. The House bill includes $414million in special federal payments to the District of Columbia. The Senate billincludes $448 million in special federal payments to the District. A significantpercentage of these payments is for court operations and criminal justice activities.The city's general fund budget, as passed by the council and approved by the controlboard, includes increased funding for public education and economic development.On June 7, 2000, the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and ManagementAssistance Authority approved a city council-passed budget for the 2001 fiscal year.The $5.5 billion operating budget, which must be approved by Congress, includes$445.4 million in special federal payments to the District of Columbia. Table 1. Status of District of Columbia Appropriations: FY2001 On November 29, 1999, the President signed the Consolidated AppropriationsAct for FY2000, P.L. 106-113 . Division A of this act appropriated funds for theDistrict of Columbia for FY2000. Since the passage of the Act, District of Columbia voters, their elected leadership, the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility andManagement Assistance Authority (the Authority), and Congress have taken actions that will affect the structure and efficacy of the District government. These changesinclude: improvements in the city's financial condition, including the city's third consecutive year with a budget surplus; and proposed amendments in the city's home rule charter that would change the size and composition of the Board of Education (Board). These changes have been accompanied by: a controversial 13-week delay incompletion of the city's annual financial report; debate concerning structure,composition, and effectiveness of elected versus appointed school boards; and theresignations of the city's Chief Financial Officer (CFO) and the superintendent ofpublic schools. In addition, the District government has had to address problemsrelated to special education, foster care, Medicare fraud, and court operations. During the last year, the Authority's role has evolved from that of direct management of the daily operations of the city's nine largest agencies to one ofexercising oversight of the District government. This transition has been aided by congressional support for Mayor Williams' government reform efforts, as evidencedby congressional passage of the District of Columbia Management Reform Act of1999, P.L. 106-1 . The Act, which was signed March 5, 1999, transferred directadministrative authority for the District's nine largest agencies from the Authority tothe mayor. The District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Act of 1995 ( P.L. 104-8 ) created the Authority and the Office of Chief FinancialOfficer (CFO). The Authority and CFO are charged with improving the delivery ofcity services, and returning the District of Columbia to a position of financialsolvency. Working in concert with the District's elected political leadership, theAuthority and the CFO have implemented a series of financial and managementreforms and have improved tax collection. These reforms, federal assistance, and animproved economy have resulted in three consecutive years of budget surpluses. P.L.104-8 requires the District to produce four consecutive years of balanced budgets asa prerequisite for the abolition of the Authority and the return of home rule. The District ended FY1997 with a surplus of $185,900,000. For FY1998, the city's budget surplus was $112,492,000. (1) After a13-week delay, the city's CFO reported a FY1999 surplus of a $86.4 million after subtracting a $35 millionpayment to the retirement of the city's long-term debt. The CFO's delay in releasingthe Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) strained the CFO's relationshipwith the mayor, the city council, the control board, and the private firm charged withconducting the annual audit. The 13-week delay in the CFO's release of the report- due February 1, 2000, but not released until April 29, 2000- triggered criticism of theCFO's leadership, and eventually contributed to her resignation. In a February 28,2000, letter to the Authority, eight members of the council requested her dismissal. Council members cited the CFO's failure to: meet the statutory deadline for the CAFR; produce trial balances during FY1999; adequately ensure that District of Columbia staff participatedin training on the new financial management system; and notify elected official of theCAFR delay. On June 13, 2000, during testimony before the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on the District of Columbia, Alice Rivlin, the chair of the Authority,noted that the District is anticipating a budget surplus of $57 million for FY2000, anda projected accumulated general fund balance for FY2001 of $260 to $270 million. Like so many District government institutions, the city's public educationsystem has experienced changes during the past year, and will face challenges in thecoming months. Reforming the city's Board of Education, improving theperformance of public school students, continuing support of charter schools as analternative, hiring a new superintendent, and addressing the problems of specialeducation students are but a few of the challenges that must be addressed. School Board Reform. In 1999, members of the Board of Education clashed over allegations that Board of EducationChair Wilma Harvey improperly used school board personnel for personal projects. Eventually, the Board replaced Harvey as chair and installed Robert Childs, anat-large member, as chair. The chairmanship controversy jeopardized the scheduledJune 30, 2000, transfer of administrative authority to the existing school board, andrefocused city and congressional attention on the need to reform what many perceiveas a flawed and ineffective institution. The direction of school board reform in the District of Columbia, including the size of the school board, and whether to elect or to appoint school board members,has been a hotly debated topic that was decided by the voters (51% for the hybridBoard of Education and 49% against) in a referendum vote on June 27, 2000. Muchof the debate on elected-versus-appointed boards involves matters of accountability,democracy, efficacy, and expertise. (2) Supporters ofan elected board believe that suchboards are directly accountable and sensitive to the concerns of residents becausethey are democratically elected. Detractors argue that elected boards, particularlythose elected by ward or district, are too parochial in their focus, and too partisan intheir politics. School boards, they offer, often serve as a political training ground forpersons with higher political aspirations who are more interested in building apolitical base than in improving the schools. Supporters of appointed boards contend that appointed board members are more likely to bring education or other expertise to the board's deliberations, and are lesslikely to be subjected to, or swayed by, partisan or parochial pressures to protect theinterest of a particular group in order to win political advantage. Detractors arguethat appointed boards are subject to patronage and are selected in an undemocraticfashion. The mayor and the city council settled on a hybrid board comprising both elected and appointed members after considering and rejecting proposals that wouldhave: allowed the mayor to appoint the superintendent and a five-member Board of Education; transferred control of the schools, including thehiring and firing of the superintendent, to the mayor for a specific period afterdeclaring a state of emergency, and then returning power to a restructured andsmaller seven member elected board; reduced the Board of Education from 11 to seven electedmembers; and allowed District residents to choose between a nine-member electedschool board and a five-member board appointed by themayor. The latter proposal, which was initially approved by the city council on February 1, 2000, was criticized by Alice Rivlin, the chair of the Authority, who argued thata referendum fight over an elected versus appointed board would be divisive. Sheurged the council and the mayor to support a single plan or face the possibility ofAuthority or congressional action. On February 17, 2000, after weeks of debate, the city council, with the mayor's support, approved a bill (PR13-295) that would restructure the District of ColumbiaBoard of Education pending approval of a referendum by District voters and a 35-daycongressional review period, during which a resolution of disapproval could beoffered to repeal the Act. (3) The Act, which wouldamend the District's Home RuleAct, would: reduce the school board from 11 to nine members; allow voters to elect four members of the board from four newschool election districts (currently eight members of the board are elected byward);allow voters to elect one at-large member to serve as President of the Boardof Education; and allow the mayor to appoint four members to the board with theadvice and consent of the city council. The Board of Elections and Ethics (BEE) held a public meeting on May 2, 2000, to formulate the final short title and summary statement for the ProposedCharter Amendment III, "The School Governance Charter Amendment Act of 2000." Upon completion of this exercise, the BEE certified the referendum question, whichwill ask D.C. voters for a yes-or-no vote in support of a hybrid school board. TheBEE has estimated the costs of conducting the special election at approximately$371,000. Because the voters approved the ballot question on June 27, 2000, thenames of candidates for the five elected seats on the new school board will appear onthe November 7, 2000, general election ballot. During the campaign to win support for the charter amendment questions were raised about the appropriateness of the mayor's use of city employees, resources,facilities, and funds. Critics charged that the mayor's use of taxpayer funds andgovernment employees was a violation of the city's campaign, election, andpersonnel laws.. On June 16, 2000 the Office of Campaign Financed ruled in favorof the complaint against the mayor and directed the mayor to immediately stop usingDistrict employees and resources in support of the charter amendment. On September 6, 2000, the Board of Elections and Ethics upheld the Office of CampaignFinance's order to stop using government employees, resources, and funds in thecampaign. The Mayor has announced he will appeal further, to the Court of Appeals. Support for Charter Schools. The charter school movement in the District of Columbia has been gaining support,despite some setbacks and controversy. Nearly one in every 11 school childrenattending public schools in the District is enrolled in one of 31 public charter schools. For its part, Congress provided additional support for the charter school movementlast year. Last year Congress amended the District of Columbia School Reform Actof 1995, extending the legislative authority for charter schools indefinitely andincluding charter schools as eligible entities for school construction and repair funds. (4) The act provides $5 million in funds for public charter schools. These funds areadministered by a 5-member board appointed by the mayor and the Public CharterSchool Board. This provision is intended to help charter schools meet one of theirmost pressing needs-adequate physical facilities. In March of this year, four members of the Emergency Transitional Education Board of Trustees, the school advisory panel created by the authority, resigned inprotest of the authority's support for the conversion of the Paul Junior High Schoolbuilding to a charter school. The scheduled conversion was also opposed by thesuperintendent of public schools who had sought to create a math and technologyprogram to be housed in the same building. The conversion of Paul to a charterschool was supported by two-thirds of the parents with children in attendance at Paul,granted by the Public Charter School Board, which is one of two charter grantingauthorities in the District, (5) and subsequently endorsedby the authority. The Paul Junior High School debate served as a lightning rod for issues surrounding the conversion and transfer of public school buildings to charter schools. On March 7, 2000, in the midst of the Paul Junior High School controversy, the citycouncil passed emergency legislation that places a seven-and-one-half monthmoratorium on public school building conversions and transfers to public charterschools. Though the bill does not affect the conversion of Paul, according to charterschool supporters, it would have a chilling effect on future conversions. In addition,the authority has transferred the power to dispose of surplus schools to the office ofthe mayor. Special Education. Addressing the needs of special education students has been a focus of House and Senateappropriators, and is one of several education-related issues that District officialshave promised to address. The District's FY1999 Appropriations Act, P.L. 105-277 ,included $30 million in special federal payments to address the backlog in evaluatingthe special education needs of students. The FY2000 appropriations act for theDistrict included a provision that would allow District officials to increase theamount of compensation awarded to attorneys representing students seeking specialeducation services. The problems of the District's special education program havebeen well documented. They include issues related to the timely evaluation ofstudents and transportation issues. Despite congressional scrutiny, the appointmentby the courts of a special master for special education, and promises from schoolofficials to address these concerns, the school system has shown little progress inaddressing the educational needs of special education students, who represent about15% of total public school enrollment, according to advocates representing specialeducation students. Bus services for students with special needs are routinely late ornonexistent. According to a report by the special master appointed by a federal judgeto help resolve transportation and other special education issues, at least one in every10 special education students missed a significant part of morning classes during thefirst two months of the year because of transportation problems. In August 2000, the school system announced its latest efforts to address problems surrounding the transportation of special education children. Schooladministrators plan to offer parents of special education students stipends rangingfrom $3,000 to $7,500 to cover the cost of transporting kids to and from schools. Inexchange for the stipends parents would forfeit their child's right for school busservice. On April 13, 1999, the city council passed PR 13-113, a resolution that established, on an emergency basis, a special committee to investigate the deliveryof special education services. All members of the city council serve on the SpecialEducation Program Investigation Special Committee. The resolution gave the committee one year to investigate the delivery of services and recommendimprovements. Earlier this year the council passed a resolution extending thedeadline for submission of the report by the special committee until September 2000.In April 1999, the superintendent of public schools placed three of the agency's topspecial education administrators on administrative leave. The superintendent alsoannounced administrative and programmatic changes as part of a 90-day action planintended to address some of the agency's longstanding problems, includingtransferring the responsibility for special education assessments to school principals. On April 19, 1999, a three-judge panel heard arguments for and against providing voting representation in the House of Representatives and the Senate forcitizens of the District of Columbia. Two cases ( Adams et al. v. Clinton et al., andAlexander et al. v. Daley et al. ) were consolidated and argued before a special panelcomprising Judges Louis F. Oberdorfer and Colleen Kollar-Kotelly of the UnitedStates District Court, and Judge Merrick B. Garland of the United States Court ofAppeals for the District of Columbia. Plaintiffs in the case were represented by attorneys from the firm of Covington & Burling, and George S. LaRoche, Esq. Provisions of the District of Columbia Appropriations Act of 1999, prohibited theDistrict government from using city funds and resources in filing the court challenge. Presently, the District of Columbia elects a non-voting delegate to Congress, who has been granted the right to cast committee votes, but cannot vote in either theCommittee of the Whole or the House. The plaintiffs' arguments for grantingfull-congressional voting representation--a single House vote and two Senatevotes--rest on the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. Lawyers for theplaintiffs contend because the apportionment process deprives District residents ofa republican form of government because it leaves them unrepresented in the nationallegislative body. This, the plaintiffs have argued, denies them equal protection underthe law, because although they are subject to laws passed by Congress, they lackvoting representation therein. The Justice Department argued that the 14th Amendment provision governing equal protection does not apply and that the Constitution grants voting representationin the House and the Senate only to states. Specifically, Article I, Section 2,paragraph 1 states that "The House of Representatives shall be composed ofMembers chosen every second Year by the People of the several States...." ArticleI, Section 3, paragraph 1 states that "The Senate of the United States shall becomposed of two Senators from each State ...." In addition, Article I, Section 8 ofthe Constitution grants to Congress the power "To exercise exclusive Legislation inall Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, bycession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of theGovernment of the United States ...." Further, Article IV, Section 3 grants only toCongress the power to admit new states into the union. The three judge panel, whose ruling was later appealed directly to the Supreme Court, handed down their decision on March 20, 2000. By a decision of two to one,the panel founded that District residents did not have a legal right to votingrepresentation in Congress. The panel acknowledged the apparent inequity andparadox that residents of the nation's capital do not possess the right to votingrepresentation in the House and Senate as do residents of the 50 states, but themajority opinion stated that the Constitution clearly states that voting representationin the House and Senate is reserved for "the People of the several States." Themajority opinion suggested that residents seek redress through the political processand not the courts. Political remedies could include a statehood constitutionalamendment, creation of a federal enclave and return of the remaining portion of theDistrict to Maryland, or allowing District residents to vote with Marylanders inSenate and House elections. On October 16, 2000, the Supreme Court affirmed theMarch 20, 2000, ruling of the three judge panel. The courts continue to play a significant role in the daily operations of the District government. According to the District's proposed budget for FY2001, 7% of proposed total general fund expenditures ($4.8 billion) will be controlled by court-appointed receivers. Three agencies (the Child and Family Services, Mental HealthServices, and District Columbia Jail Medical Services) account for at least $394.6million in proposed spending controlled by court order. The budget did not includecost estimates for one other agency controlled by a court-appointed receiver: theDistrict of Columbia Public Housing Authority. In December 1999, Mayor Williams appointed Grace M. Lopes as his administration's liaison with the four agencies under receivership. Her primarymission is to help fashion solutions that will lead to the return of these agencies toDistrict administrative control. However, the effectiveness of the agencies underreceivership and their progress toward return of the four agencies to Districtgovernment control has been uneven, at best. City officials are hopeful that the agencies will be returned to District control within a year. The Housing Authoritywas returned to District control by September 2000. There is little to indicate thattwo other agencies-Child and Family Services and Mental Health Services-havemade substantial progress in addressing the problems and issues that forced theagencies into receivership. The agencies' problems were highlighted by news reportsof the deaths of children and retarded adults in their care. On October 23, 2000, aUnited States District Judge Thomas Hogan approved a plan that would returncontrol of the Child and Family Services agency to the District government by thesummer of 2001, and elevate the agency to a cabinet level agency. Mental HealthServices is set to return to District control by April 2001. The fourth agency, JailMedical Services, will be returned by the end of the year through the efforts of themayor. During the interim, city officials are seeking greater budget coordination with court-appointed receivers. Presently, city officials, including the authority, lack thepower to review, revise, or alter the budget request of an agency under receivership. The agency's budget request for each fiscal year is simply included in the District'sproposed budget, and is subject only to court review. As part of the mayor's strategy to hasten the return of agencies under receivership, and to enhance financial accountability and management of Districtfunds, the congressional delegate for the District of Columbia introduced the Districtof Columbia Receivership Accountability Act of 2000, H.R. 3995 , onMarch 5, 2000. The act would require each court-appointed receiver to: consult with the mayor and CFO when preparing the agency's annual budget; prepare and submit to the Mayor, for inclusion in the District's annual budget, the agency's proposed or estimated budget; follow the applicable procurement policies and practices of the Chief Procurement Officer of the District; submit to annual financial and management audits conducted by the Inspector General of the District; and ensure that the costs incurred in the administration of each agency are consistent with applicable regional and national standards (unless waivedby the court during an interim period of up to two years). Housing Authority. The Housing Authority, which has been in receivership since 1995, could be returned to citycontrol sometime this year. Earlier this year District public housing residents electedthree tenants to a nine-member board of commissioners charged with setting policyand approving major contracts for the agency after the court-appointed receiver,David Gilmore, completed his assignment as receiver during September 2000. Child and Family Services. In the case of Child and Family Services, the city agency charged with protecting abusedand neglected children, critics of the receiver point to the case of Brianna Blackmon,a 23-month old child who died in January after being returned to her mother. Themother had been charged and found guilty of child neglect a year earlier. The child'sdeath prompted a congressional hearing and recommendations that includedadditional training for social workers and requiring social workers to provide fieldreports to judges 10 days before hearings on a child's status. In the wake of theBrianna Blackmon case, the court-appointed receiver asked the city for $60 millionin additional funds. This would increase the agency's budget to $184 million, andwould be used to provide higher payments to foster parents, hire additional socialworkers, and implement other initiatives necessary to fully comply with the courtorder to improve the agency's services. On October 23, 2000, the District Court Judge Thomas Hogan approved a plan that would return the agency to District control by the summer of 2001. Theagreement returning control of the agency to the District requires the District toelevate the agency to a cabinet level agency with the administrator reporting directlyto the mayor, develop licensing standards for foster and group homes, and enactlegislation that gives the agency responsibility for investigating abuse and neglectcases. Currently, neglect allegations are investigated by the agency while abuse casesare investigated by the police. Mental Health Services. On March 6, 2000, U.S. District Judge Thomas F. Hogan approved a plan to return theagency to District control. The judge found that since being placed in receivershipin 1997, the system had deteriorated. The plan agreed to by District officials and acoalition representing mental health groups, removed the court-appointed receiverat the end of March 2000, placed the agency under control of an interim receiver, andwill transfer control to the District by April 2001. The court will appoint a monitorto review the District's administration of mental health services during the firstsix-month period following the District takeover. The state of mental health services in the District was illustrated on February 29, 2000, when police and firefighters were called to a Northwest Washington mentalhealth group home and found the doors chained shut. The home is part of anunofficial network of unregulated group homes for the mentally ill. Advocates forthe mentally ill assert that many of them are firetraps. Mental health officials notedthat once patients are considered eligible for independent living mental health caseworkers are no longer responsible for their housing. Although, no formal lists of theunregulated homes exist, it is estimated that there are approximately 200 such homesin the District. During an October 28, 1999 hearing before Judge Aubrey Robinson,mental health advocates noted cases of fraud, neglect, and abuse by mental healthresidential facilities operators. More recently, during late May and early June 2000, the mayor and his staff testified before a council committee investigating the city's troubled history in theadministration of services for the mentally retarded. The Deputy Mayor for ChildrenYouth, and Families acknowledged in press reports that there had been 24 deaths ofgroup home residents with mental retardation and developmental disabilities in 1999,and a total of 159 such deaths since 1993. During his June 1, 2000, testimony before the city council committee, the mayor pledged to make improvements in the city's health services for mentally retardedadults. Some of the steps the city will take include reporting all deaths in grouphomes for the mentally retarded to the medical examiner for autopsy, the formationof a committee to review all deaths in group homes, and hiring of an outsidecontractor to determine the medical status of retarded group home residents. Inaddition, the mayor plans to develop legislation that would create a commissioncharged with reviewing and restructuring the system of services for mentally retardedgroup home residents. In March 2000, the head of Psychological Development Associates, Inc. a private firm providing therapeutic services to the mentally retarded, was convictedin United States District Court of defrauding the city of $1.6 million in Medicaidfunds for services that were never rendered. In May 2000, a former head of the dayprogram branch of the District's Mental Retardation and Development DisabilitiesAdministration, was convicted of federal conspiracy and conflict-of-interest chargeslinked to Psychological Development Associates, Inc. District Columbia Jail Medical Services. The cost of health services is one of the issues promptingcity officials to seek removal of the receiver for medical services at the District ofColumbia jail. The jail's medical services, which have been under receivershipsince 1995, carry an excessively high price tag, according to the city's congressionaldelegate. The delegate, on March 7, 2000, cited statistics from the National Instituteof Corrections, and noted that the District per-inmate per-day medical cost of $19 isfar higher than the city of Baltimore's $5.18 per-inmate per-day medical cost. Shealso noted that the cost of medical services for District inmates is almost three timesthe national average. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 ( P.L. 105-33 ), (6) initiated several changes inthe operation of the District's corrections and criminal justice system, including theclosing of the Lorton Correctional Facility by the end of 2001. The most recentactivity involves the transfer of D.C. felons into the federal prison system andprivately-run prisons, and public review of the recommendations of the D.C.Sentencing Commission. In addition, the role of the U.S. Parole Commission and itsresponsibility for parole decisions affecting D.C. offenders is also an issue of currentconcern. Lorton Inmate Transfers. As of April 6, 2000, approximately 2,300 District of Columbia felons have been transferredinto the custody of the Federal Bureau of Prisons (FBOP). At a House Appropriationssubcommittee hearing on March 2, 2000, and a Senate Subcommittee on CriminalJustice Oversight hearing on April 6, 2000, the Director of FBOP testified thatovercrowded conditions in the federal prison system, and the change in closure datefor Lorton from the year 2003 to 2001, complicates the FBOP's ability to transferD.C. felons into the federal prison system. She added that every effort will be madeto meet Lorton facility closure deadline of December 31, 2001. In addition, thetransfer of D.C. felons to privately operated facilities has been delayed due toenvironmental and legal challenges. In an effort to ensure the scheduled closure ofLorton, the FBOP negotiated a contract with the state of Virginia to house 900 D.C.felons. Advisory Commission on Sentencing. The National Capital Revitalization and SelfGovernment Improvement Act of 1997, Title XI of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997( P.L. 105-33 ), mandated the restructuring of the city's sentencing system to complywith federal truth-in-sentencing guidelines. The 1997 act eliminated parole andindeterminate sentencing of convicted felons. The act required the District todevelop a set of determinate sentences, and requires felons convicted of such crimesto serve 85% of the term for such convictions behind bars. Felons convicted ofsubsection (h) felonies such as murder and rape are also required to serve "anadequate period" of supervised release. In 1998, the city council created theAdvisory Commission on Sentencing and directed the 13-member commission tomake recommendations regarding criminal sentencing reform mandated by the 1997Revitalization Act. The commission submitted its latest recommendations to the citycouncil on April 5, 2000. The new rules took effect August 5, 2000. Thecommission's eight page report recommends: establishing a unitary sentencing system by abolishing parole for all offenders (the Revitalization Act of 1997 abolished parole for subsection (h)offenders who commit serious crimes such as murder andrape); training for judges and other parties regarding the switch from indeterminate sentences, where felons are sentenced to serve time within a range ofyears-for example, 10 to 15 years for rape-to determinate sentencing, whereconvicted felons serve a set term of years-for example, seven years for rape-thus,making sentencing and time served more predictable; allowing the courts to impose a five-year supervised release period for offenses that carry a statutory maximum sentence of 25 years or more, athree year supervised release period for offenses that carry a statutory maximumsentence of less than 25 years; allowing the courts to impose a supervised release period greater than five years for certain sex offenses; and establishing a maximum sentence of 60 years for first degree murder, 40 years for second-degree murder, and 30 years for all other offenses thatpreviously carried a maximum penalty of life imprisonment. Several public hearings have been conducted to increase public awareness of the new sentencing provisions and recommendations of the Commission. The councilhas set June 26, 2000 as the target date for voting on the sentencing guidelinesincluded in council bill PR13-696, the District of Columbia Sentencing Reform Actof 2000. Parole. The transfer of D.C. offenders to the federal system also includes changes in parole authority. The U.S.Parole Commission has assume responsibility for making parole release decisions forD.C. felons since August 5, 1998. The D.C. Board of Parole, however has theauthority to supervise and revoke parole of D.C. parolees until August 5, 2000. Subsequent to this date, the D.C. Board of Parole has been abolished and the U.S.Parole Commission has jurisdiction over all D.C. offenders. The AdvisoryCommission on Sentencing (ACS) included several recommendations intended toaddress issues surrounding the revocation of supervised release and parole. TheCommission recommended that the city council enact legislation setting themaximum terms of imprisonment for revocation of supervised release consistent withfederal standards under 18 U.S.C. 3583(e)(3) and 18 U.S.C. 3559. No additional funding for the District of Columbia was requested by the Clinton Administration or the authority, and none was included in the House version of H.R. 3908 , Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for FY2000. On February 7, 2000, the Clinton Administration released its FY2000 budget recommendations. The Administration's proposed budget includes $445.5 millionin federal payments to the District of Columbia. An overwhelming percentage of thePresident's proposed federal payments and assistance to the District involve thecourts and criminal justice system. This includes $103.5 million for the CourtServices and Offender Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia, anindependent federal agency which has assumed management responsibility for theDistrict's pretrial services, adult probation, and parole supervision functions. Inaddition, the Administration is requesting $103 million in support of courtoperations, and $134 million for the trustee appointed to oversee the Districtcorrections systems, including the closing of the Lorton correctional facility and thetransfer of its inmates into the federal prison system. These four functions (prisonadministration, court operations, defender services, and offender supervision)represent 84% of $445.4 million of the President's proposed federal payments to theDistrict of Columbia (See Table 2). On June 7, 2000, the Authority approved a $5.5 billion budget for FY2001. The budget proposal includes a $150 million reserve fund mandated by the District ofColumbia Appropriations Act of 1999, P.L. 105-277 . In addition, the budget wouldincrease funding for public education by $131 million, for economic development by$24 million, and for general government support by $135 million. The budget mustbe approved by Congress (See Table 2). Table 2. District of Columbia General and Special Federal Payment Funds: Proposed and Final FY2001Appropriations (in millions of dollars) a Funds would be provided under a separate heading-Defender Services for the District of Columbia Courts. The Committee's recommendation is based on theCourt's misuse of funds appropriated for such activities in previous years. b Funds would be provided under a separate heading-Defender Services for theDistrict of Columbia Courts. The Committee's recommendation is based on theCourt's misuse of funds appropriated for such activities in previous years. c In previous years funds would be provided as part of District of Columbia Courtoperations. The Committee recommends creation of a separate appropriations toensure payment of attorneys representing indigent persons, guardianship, and abusedand neglected children in court proceedings. d An additional $18 million would be transferred from interest bearing accounts heldby the Authority on behalf of the District government. Note: Brackets indicate amount subsumed under line immediately above. Total maybe off due to rounding. e The $5 million made available for FY2001 is a carryover of unobligated fundsappropriated in FY2000. This amount is not included in total special federalpayments for FY2001. Note: Total may not add due to rounding. General Provisions for FY2001. Unlike previous years, the Administration's budget for FY2001 does not includegeneral provisions. The Administration and city leaders had hoped to eliminate anumber of provisions included in last year's appropriations act that they considerarcane, irrelevant, or inappropriate. Congress not only appropriates federal payments to the district to fund ceratin activities, but also reviews the District's entire budget including the expenditure oflocal funds. The District subcommittees of both the House and SenateAppropriations Committees must approve-and may modify-the District's budget. House and Senate versions of the District budget are reconciled in a joint conferencecommittee and must be passed by the House and the Senate. After this final actionby the House and he Senate, the District's budget is forwarded to the President whocan sign it into law or veto it. Section 302(b) of the Congressional Budget Act requires that the House and Senate pass a concurrent budget resolution establishing 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 302(b) allocation of budget authority and outlaysamong the 13 appropriation subcommittees. On May 4, 2000, the Senate Appropriations Committee approved a 302(b) suballocation for the District of $441 million. This is $4 million less than the $445million requested by the Administration for FY2001. The House AppropriationsCommittee approved 302(b) suballocation of $414 million in budget authority forFY2001 for the District of Columbia. House Appropriations Committee. On July 25, 2000, the House Appropriations Committee reported an originalmeasure, H.R. 4942 , appropriating funds for the District of Columbiafor FY2001 ( H.Rept. 106-786 ). Federal Funds. The Appropriations Committee bill includes $414 million in special federal assistance. The majority ofthese funds ($384 million) would be allocated to courts, prisons, and criminal justiceactivities including offender services. In addition, the bill appropriates $14 millionfor college scholarship program, and $7 million for construction of a New YorkAvenue Metro station. The bill directs an additional $18 million in funds held by theAuthority to complete the $25 million federal contribution for construction of theNew York Avenue station. Local Funds. The District's budget as approved by the House Appropriations Committee includes $4.842 billion ingeneral fund operating expenses and $654 million in enterprise funding for a total of$5.496 billion in total operating expenses for FY2001. The budget eliminates aproposed $3.360 million increase in funding for the Authority for FY2001. Theincrease was proposed to cover the cost of severance pay for the agency's staff. Theproposed severance packages were criticized as excessive by the HouseAppropriation's Committee in its report ( H.Rept. 106-786 ) accompanying H.R. 4942 . The report notes that the Authority proposed budget of $6.5million was more than double that of its FY2000 appropriation of $3.140 million, ata time when the Authority is preparing to be phrased out of existence in anticipationof the District meeting the congressionally mandated requirement of four consecutiveyears of balanced budgets before the restoration of home rule. General Provisions. The bill includes several social rider provisions that are viewed as controversial or intrusive by someDistrict officials and residents. The House bill includes a provision barring thefederal funding of needle exchange programs aimed at reducing the spread of AIDSand HIV among drug users. The Committee approved by voice vote an amendmentthat would allow city and private funds to be used to finance a needle exchangeprogram. The amendment would prohibit the use of federal funds for a needleexchange program. The Committee rejected an amendment that would have restrictedthe distribution of hypodermic needles. The provision would have prohibited thedistribution needles within 1,000 feet of a public or private day care center, schoolor university, public swimming pool, park, playground, video arcade, youth center,or near any event sponsored by these facilities. The Committee also included a provision in the appropriations bill that would allow the District to implement a provision in a proposed Health Insurance Coveragefor Contraceptive Act of 2000. The proposed legislation would require employerswith employee health plans to pay for contraceptive services if they have aprescription drug plan, even if the employers may object to the use of contraceptiveson religious or moral grounds. The chairman of the House District of ColumbiaAppropriations Subcommittee included a provision in the subcommittee draft of theDistrict of Columbia Appropriations Act for FY2001 that would have prohibited thecontraceptive provision from taking effect. During the Appropriations Committeemarkup on July 20, 2000, the committee approved, by voice vote, an amendment thatwould allow the contraceptive parity provision to stand conditioned on the citycouncil drafting a "conscience clause" that would allow employers to opt out of therequirement based on religious or moral objections. House Floor Action. On September 14, 2000, the House passed H.R. 4942 , the District ofColumbia Appropriations Act for FY2001 by a vote of 217 (yeas) to 207 (nays). OnJuly 26, 2000, the House considered H.R. 4942 , the District of ColumbiaAppropriations Act for FY2001. The House, by voice vote, approved an amendmentintroduced by Representative Istook, that would transfer $100,000 for a study of theDistrict's tax structure to help finance construction of a New York Avenue Metrorailstation. The total federal contribution for construction of a New York AvenueMetrorail station would be $25 million including $7.1 million in direct federalcontribution and $17.9 million in transferred funds from interest bearing accountscontrol by the Authority. In addition, several other amendments were offered duringHouse consideration of H.R. 4942 , including amendments that would: prohibit the public funding of needle exchange programs; prevent the exchange of needles within 1000 feet of certain public places that serve as gathering places for children such as schools, playgrounds,and day care centers; and provide for penalties for persons under the age of 18 years who are found in possession of tobacco products. During the July 26, 2000 floor debate on H.R. 4942 , an amendment was introduced by Delegate Norton (D-D.C.) that would have eliminated a provision(Section 168(a))of the bill that would prohibit the District from implementing the Health Insurance Coverage for Contraceptive Act of 2000. The amendment wasrendered moot after Mayor Williams vetoed the legislation. Senate Appropriations Committee. On September 13, 2000, the Senate Appropriations Committee reported S. 3041 , a bill appropriating funds for the District of Columbia forFY2001 ( S.Rept. 106-409 ). Federal Funds. The Senate Appropriations Committee bill includes $445 million in special federal assistance. The majority of these funds ($390.2 million) would be allocated to courts, prisons,and criminal justice activities including offender services. In addition, the billappropriates $17 million for college scholarship program, and $25 million forconstruction of a New York Avenue Metro station. This is the full federalcommitment to the project, which is expected to receive an additional $50 millionfrom the city and the private sector. Local Funds. The District's budget as approved by the Senate Appropriations Committee includes $4.680 billion ingeneral fund operating expenses and $654 million in enterprise funding for a total of$5.334 billion in total operating expenses for FY2001. The budget supports aproposed $3.360 million increase in funding for the Authority for FY2001. Theincrease was proposed to cover the cost of severance pay for the agency's staff. The Authority is preparing to be phrased out of existence in anticipation of the Districtmeeting the congressionally mandated requirement of four consecutive years ofbalanced budgets before the restoration of home rule. General Provisions. The bill includes several social rider provisions that are viewed as controversial or intrusive by someDistrict officials and residents including a provision barring the federal and cityfunding of needle exchange programs aimed at reducing the spread of AIDS andHIV among drug users. The Committee bill would allow private funds to be usedto finance a needle exchange program. The Senate Appropriations Committee alsoincludes a provision that would prohibit legalizing the medical use of marijuana and restricting the use of federal and city funds for abortions to cases where thepregnancy was the result of rape or incest, or threatens the health of the would-bemother. The bill requires the Chief Financial Officer to submit a comprehensive financial management policy comprising cash, debt, financial asset, emergency andcontingency reserve management, and real property tax exemption policies. Inaddition, it identifies the process for review and approval of these policies. The billwould also amend the Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Actrelating to the hiring and dismissal of the CFO. The Senate bill proposes a 30-daycongressional review period following the mayor, city council's, and Authority'sapproval of the appointment or dismissal of the CFO. In addition, the bill identifies24 specific duties and responsibilities of the CFO. Earlier this year CFO Valarie Holtwas dismissed, in part, because of criticism of the office's tardiness in deliveringfinancial reports critical to the development of this year's budget plan. The Senate bill would eliminate or slowly phase out over several years the requirement that the city maintain a $150 million reserve fund. Instead, the Senatebill would require that the city create two reserve funds: a contingency reserve fund;and an emergency reserve fund. The contingency cash reserve fund would set asideup to 3% of each year's operating budget for unforseen or nonrecurring needs suchas natural disasters, federal mandates, and revenue shortfalls. The second reservefund, the emergency cash reserve fund, would require the city to maintain a 4%reserve of each year's operating budget for unanticipated and nonrecurring needssuch as a natural disaster or calamity. In order to reach the 4% set-aside requirementfor the emergency cash reserve, the District would be required to deposit at least0.5% of each fiscal year's operating budget ending in FY2008. The District alsowould be required to deposit at least 0.5% of each year's operating budget in orderto meet the 3% contingency fund requirement by FY2006. Senate Floor Action. On September 27, 2000, the Senate passed its version of H.R. 4942 ,substituting the language of S. 3041 , a bill appropriating funds for theDistrict of Columbia for FY2001 ( S.Rept. 106-409 ). The bill was approved by thefull Senate by unanimous consent. On October 11, 2000 House and Senate conferees reached agreement on a conference version of H.R. 4942 . On October 26, 2000, the conferencecommittee on H.R. 4942 , release the conference report ( H.Rept.106-1005 ) accompanying the bill. The conference version of H.R. 4942 included appropriations for the Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State. Themove was intended to expedite the consideration of appropriations for thesedepartments. On October 26, 2000, the House approved H.R. 4942 despite the threat of a veto. On October 27, 2000, the Senate approved theconference bill by a vote of 48 to 43. In a October 26, 2000, letter to the HouseSpeaker and Majority Leader of the Senate, the President indicated that he wouldveto an otherwise acceptable District Appropriations Act because of the inclusion ofobjectionable provisions in the Commerce, Justice, and State portion of the bill. Upon returning from an election recess, Congress considered and passed H.R. 5633 , an act appropriating funds for the District of Columbia forFY2001. The bill did not include provisions appropriating funds for the Departments of Commerce,Justice, and State that resulted in the threatened veto by President Clinton. TheHouse and the Senate quickly passed H.R. 5633 by unanimous consenton November 14, 2000, leaving unchanged the District of Columbia appropriationsprovisions first approved in the conference report accompanying H.R. 4942 . President Clinton signed H.R. 5633 into law on November 22,2000, as P.L. 106-522 . Federal Funds. P.L. 106-522 includes $444.975 billion in special federal payments to the District of Columbia. The majority of these funds ($386 million) would be allocated to corrections andcriminal justice activities. The bill also includes $17 million for a college tuitionassistance program, $25 million for New York Avenue Metro station. The act alsoincludes $100,000 for enforcement of law banning possession of tobacco productsby minors. Local Funds. P.L. 105-522 includes $5.5 billion in general and enterprise fund expenditures for FY2001. Thisis $142 million more than the District budgeted in FY2000. The conference bill,which was vetoed, included $998.9 million budget for public education includingcharter schools. This is a $132 million increase in funding for public education, thelargest increase in the District's budget. Other increases include $15 million foreconomic development and regulatory activities, and $8 million for public works. These and other increases were balanced against cuts in other government activitiesincluding $14 million less for public safety activities and $85 million less inrepayment of loans and interest, and $7.9 million reduction in the payment of intereston short term borrowing. General Provisions. P.L. 106-522 , the District of Columbia Appropriations Act for FY2001, also includes several socialrider provisions that are viewed as controversial or intrusive by some Districtofficials and residents. Many of these provisions were included in previous Districtof Columbia appropriation acts. P.L. 106-522 bars the use or District and federalfunds for needle exchange programs aimed at reducing the spread of AIDS and HIVamong drug users, a provision that was included in the FY2000 appropriations for thecity. The new public law, consistent with FY2000 appropriations language wouldallow private funds to be used to finance a needle exchange program. The actincludes a provision that restricts the distribution of hypodermic needles. This new provision prohibits the distribution of needles within 1,000 feet of a public or privateday care center, school or university, public swimming pool, park, playground, videoarcade, youth center, or near any event sponsored by these facilities. P.L. 106-522 , also includes a provision that allows the District to pass and implement laws requiring the inclusion of health insurance coverage forcontraceptive prescriptions. The legislation also includes a provision that wouldallow the contraceptive parity provision to stand so long such legislation included a"conscience clause" that would allow employers to opt out of the requirement basedon religious or moral objections. The act also include provisions prohibiting thedecriminalization of marijuana for medical purposes, the use of funds for lobbyingfor statehood or voting representation in Congress, and the use of District and federalfunds for abortion services except when the life of the mother is in danger or thepregnancy is the result of rape or incest. These provisions were included in previousacts appropriating funds for the District of Columbia. The act also includes a newprovision that would phase out over several years the requirement that the citymaintain a $150 million reserve fund. Instead, the act includes a provision containedin the Senate version of H.R. 4942 requiring the city to establish tworeserve funds: a contingency reserve fund; and an emergency reserve fund. Thecontingency cash reserve fund would set aside up to 3% of each year's operatingbudget for unforseen or nonrecurring needs such as natural disasters, federalmandates, and revenue shortfalls. The second reserve fund, the emergency cashreserve fund, requires the city to maintain a 4% reserve of each year's operatingbudget for unanticipated and nonrecurring needs. In order to reach the 4% set-asiderequirement for the emergency cash reserve, the District would be required to depositat least 0.5% of each fiscal year's operating budget ending in FY2008. The Districtalso would be required to deposit at least 0.5% of each year's operating budget inorder to meet the 3% contingency fund requirement by FY2006. Table 3. District of Columbia General Funds: Proposed and Final Appropriations for FY2001 (in millions ofdollars) a Brackets indicate projected saving to be achieved and not actual expenditure. b Conference and Senate versions of the bill would establish two reserve funds: a"contingency reserve fund" into which the Mayor may deposit at least 3% of the totalfiscal year operating budget; and a "emergency cash reserve fund" into which theMayor may deposit at least 4% of the total fiscal year operating budget. Thesereserve funds would be established over a multi-year period and would replace thepresent reserve fund of $150 million.

Summary: On February 7, 2000, President Clinton submitted his budget recommendations for FY2001. The Administration's proposed budget includes $ 445 million in federal payments and assistance tothe District of Columbia. On March 13, 2000, D.C. Mayor Anthony Williams submitted hisproposed budget for FY2001. The proposed budget included $4.7 billion in general fundexpenditures and $695 million in enterprise funds. The District of Columbia Financial Responsibilityand Management Assistance Authority (Authority), on June 7, 2000, approved a budget compromisereached by the city council and the mayor, which includes $137 million more in funding for publiceducation than appropriated for FY2000, and $47 million more than requested by the mayor. Inaddition, the city's budget appropriates $214.6 million for economic development, which is $24million more than appropriated in FY2000, and $197.8 million for governmental support activities,which is $62.0 million more than appropriated in FY2000. The District budget, which must be approved by Congress, requests $445 million in special federal payments. On September 27, 2000, the Senate completed action on its version of theDistrict's Appropriations Act for FY2001, H.R. 4942 (previously S. 3041 ) , which includes $445 million in special federal payments. On September 14, 2000, the Housepassed its version of the District's appropriation bill, H.R. 4942 , which includes $414million in special federal payments to the District. On October 26, 2000, the House approved aconference version of H.R. 4942 , which included appropriations for the Departmentsof Commerce, Justice, and State. The conference bill includes $448 million in special paymentsto the District. Earlier this year District residents approved by referendum an amendment to the District's home rule charter that restructures the city's Board of Education. The charter amendment reconfigures theschool board from an 11 member panel with eight members elected by ward and 3 at-large to a boardcomprising five elected members and four members appointed by the mayor. The referendum, whichwas approved by voters on June 27, 2000, will give the mayor greater influence over educationpolicy, funding, and resource allocation through his appointed members on the Board of Education. It also means the mayor assumes greater accountability for the state of the city's public schools. In addition, the council must complete its work on revising sentencing guidelines governing convicted felons as mandated by the National Capital Revitalization Act of 1997, P.L. 105-33 . The1997 Act transferred to the federal government funding responsibility for criminal justice activities. These activities account for $244.9 million (55%) of the total $445 million in requested specialfederal payments. This report will be updated to reflect the latest action affecting the District'sFY2001 appropriations. Key Policy Staff DSP= Domestic Social Policy Division, GF=Government and Finance Division