On November 25, 2003, a House and Senate conference committee reported H.R. 2673 ( H.Rept. 108-401 ), the Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2004. It combined sixappropriations bills that Congress was unable to complete before the close of the first session of the108th Congress, including H.R. 2765 , the District of ColumbiaAppropriations Act forFY2004, which became Division C of H.R. 2673. The House agreed to the conferencereport on December 8, 2003, while the Senate postponed final consideration of the measure untilCongress reconvenes in January 2004. On November 18, 2003, the Senate passed its version of H.R.2765. On September 9, 2003, the House approved its version of H.R. 2765 bya vote of 210 to 206 (Roll Call Vote 491). During consideration of the bill, the House approved aschool voucher program for the District of Columbia ( H.Amdt. 368 , Roll Call Vote No.490). On September 4, 2003, the Senate Appropriations Committee reported S. 1583 ( S.Rept. 108-142 ; later substituted as the text for the Senate version of H.R. 2765). TheHouse Appropriations Committee reported H.R. 2765 ( H.Rept. 108-214 ) on July 17, 2004. As passed by the House, H.R. 2765 recommended $466 million in special federalpayments, while the Senate and conference bills recommend $545 million. The conference version of the District of Columbia Appropriations Act for FY2004 includes special federal payments for several education initiatives, including $17 million for the District'sCollege Tuition Assistance Program, $13 million for a school voucher program, $13 million forpublic schools, $13 million for public charter schools, $4.5 million for public school facilities forplayground and window repair and replacement, 10.75 million appropriated to the CFO andearmarked for various education and related activities to be administered by organizations identifiedin the conference report, and $2 million for the Family Literacy Program, which would be match bythe District on a dollar for dollar basis. In addition, the conference bill recommends $373.1 millionfor criminal justice and court-related activities. Table 1. Status of District of Columbia Appropriations:FY2004 (1) The Senate substituted the language of S. 1583 for the text of H.R. 2765before it began consideration of the bill. On February 3, 2003, the Bush Administration released its FY2004 budget recommendations. The Administration's proposed budget included $420.5 millionin federal payments to the District of Columbia. (1) A major portion of the President'sproposed federal payments and assistance to the District involve the courts andcriminal justice system. This included $166.5 million for the Court Services andOffender Supervision Agency for the District of Columbia, an independent federalagency that has assumed management responsibility for the District's pretrialservices, adult probation, and parole supervision functions. In addition, theAdministration requested $163.8 million in support of court operations, and $32million for Defender Services. These three functions (court operations, defenderservices, and offender supervision) represent $362.3 million, or 86.3% of thePresident's proposed $420.5 million in federal payments to the District of Columbia(see Table 2 ). On June 3, 2003, District officials transmitted the city's $5.7 billion budget for FY2004 to the President for review and approval. The proposed budget included arequest for $915.9 million in special federal payments. On July 9, 2003, the BushAdministration transmitted the city's budget to Congress for its review and approval.The city's proposed operating budget of $5.7 billion includes a $50 million cashreserve fund. In addition, the District's budget would decrease local funding forpublic education by $48 million, while seeking $23.2 million in special federalpayments for charter school financing, early childhood education, and specialeducation activities. It would also decrease funding for general government supportby $19 million and human support services by $92 million, while requesting $18million in special federal payments for human support services targeted toimprovements at the St. Elizabeth Hospital and substance abuse facilities. TheDistrict also requested special federal payments of $159 million for emergencypreparedness assistance, $75 million for public safety, and $42 million for publiceducation. Section 302(a) of the Congressional Budget Act requires that the House and Senate 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 $466 million in budgetauthority for FY2004 for the District of Columbia -- about half the amount requestedby the District. The Senate Appropriations Committee approved a Section 302(b)suballocation of $545 million in budget authority for FY2004 for the District ofColumbia. This is $370 million less than requested by the city. Congress not only appropriates federal payments to the District to fund certain activities but also reviews the District's entire budget, including the expenditure oflocal funds. The District subcommittees of both the House and Senate AppropriationsCommittees must approve -- and may modify -- the District's budget. House andSenate versions of the District budget are reconciled in a joint conference committeeand must be agreed to by the House and the Senate. After this final action, theDistrict's budget is forwarded to the President, who can sign it into law or veto it. House Version (H.R. 2765). On September 9, 2003, H.R. 2765 ,the District of Columbia Appropriations Act for FY2004, was approved by the Houseby a vote of 210 to 206 (Roll Call Vote No. 491). During its consideration of the bill,the House approved a controversial school voucher program. The HouseAppropriations Committee reported H.R. 2765 ( H.Rept. 108-214 ) on July17. In line with the Committee's recommendation, the House approved $466 millionin special federal payments for the District of Columbia. The bill included $17million for a college tuition assistance plan, $15 million for security planning, and$163.1 million for court services and offender supervision. H.R. 2765 alsoincluded $10 million in special federal payments for a school choice programdesigned to provide financial assistance to families of District school-age studentsattending private and parochial schools. The $10 million special federal paymentwas contingent on the passage of authorizing legislation. The bill also included $4.5million for public school facilities for playground enhancements and windowreplacements. The bill did not include $48.7 million in funding for public educationrequested by the District, including $6 million for charter schools and $20 million forspecial education students, facilities, and transportation. House Bill General Provisions. During the September 5, 2003, House floor debate on H.R. 2765 , theHouse rejected an amendment ( H.Amdt. 367 ) that would have deletedthe proposed $10 million special federal payment for a school voucher program. OnSeptember 9, 2003, the House approved an amendment ( H.Amdt. 368 ),introduced by Rep. Tom Davis, that would have authorized a school voucherprogram in the District of Columbia. In addition, as approved by the House, H.R.2765 included a provision that would have removed the prohibition on theuse of District funds for costs associated with implementing the District's HealthCare Benefits Expansion Act of 1992 (domestic partners program). The House billretained a number of provisions that District officials want to eliminate or modify,including those related to medical marijuana, abortion, and needle exchangeprograms. The bill also included a provision that would have prohibited the cityfrom using of federal and local funds appropriated in FY2004 in support of a lawsuitintended to enforce the District of Columbia Assault Weapons Manufacturing StrictLiability Act of 1990. For a summary and analysis of the general provisionscontained in H.R. 2765, see CRS Report RL32045(pdf) , District of ColumbiaAppropriations Act for FY2004: Comparison of General Provisions ofP.L. 108-7 and the House and Senate Versions of H.R. 2765 . Senate Version of H.R. 2765 (formerly S. 1583). On September 24, 2003, the Senate began floorconsideration of its version of H.R. 2765 , the District of ColumbiaAppropriations Act for FY2004. The Senate Appropriations Committee reported itsversion of the act ( S.Rept. 108-142 ) on September 4. The Committee recommended$545 million in special federal payments for the District of Columbia. The billincluded $17 million for a college tuition assistance plan, $15 million for securityplanning, and $173.4 million for court services and offender supervision. The Senatebill also includes $40 million in special federal payments for elementary andsecondary education, including $13 million for a school choice program designed toprovide financial assistance to families of District school-age students attendingprivate and parochial schools. The bill also proposed $13 million for the District'spublic schools, and $13 million for the city's public charter schools. The billincluded $14 million for improvements in the city's foster care program; a similarprovision was not included in the House version of the bill. It also recommendedappropriating $20 million to be administered by the CFO in support of education,security, economic development, and health initiatives, but it did not specifyrecipients of funds in the bill or its accompanying report. The House bill included$10 million for the CFO, but it did not specify the purpose or activities the fundswould be used to support. Senate Bill General Provisions. The Senate bill, like its House counterpart, included a provision that would haveremoved the prohibition on the use of District funds for costs associated withimplementing the District's Health Care Benefits Expansion Act of 1992 (domesticpartners program). It retained a number of provisions that District officials want toeliminate or modify, including those related to medical marijuana and abortion. Itproposed modifying the provision related to funding of needle exchange programs,allowing District but not federal funds to be used for such activities. The bill alsoincluded two provisions that would lift the prohibition on the use of District fundsfor lobbying and advocacy activities of elected officials. This would allow theDistrict's elected officials to use District, but not federal, funds for advocacy withrespect to any issue including statehood and voting representation in Congress. TheSenate bill included a provision not included in the House bill that would allow theDistrict of Columbia to appoint and compensate an attorney to represent a parent orguardian in an adoption proceeding who is facing termination of parental rights if theparent or guardian lacks the financial means of obtaining adequate legalrepresentation. For a summary and analysis of the general provisions contained in H.R. 2765 , see CRS Report RL32045(pdf) , District of ColumbiaAppropriations Act for FY2004: Comparison of General Provisions ofP.L. 108-7 and the House and Senate Versions of H.R. 2765 . Conference Version of Division C of H.R. 2763 (formerly H.R. 2765). Unable to completeaction on six appropriations measures (including H.R. 2765 ) before theend of the 2003 legislative session, Congress consolidated these funding measuresinto an omnibus appropriations measure. On November 25, 2003, a House andSenate conference committee reported H.R. 2673 ( H.Rept. 108-401 ), the Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2004. On December 18, 2003, the Housepassed the measure by a vote of 242 to 176 (Roll Call Vote No. 676). Division C ofthe bill provides for the appropriation of funds for the District of Columbia forFY2004. The Senate postponed final action on the measure until its return in January2004. The conference bill would appropriate $545 million in special federalpayments for the District of Columbia and would approve the city's $5.7 billionoperating budget. The bill contains several significant education initiatives,including $17 million for the city college tuition assistance program, $13 million forpublic schools, $13 million for charter schools, $13 million for a school voucherprogram to assistance low-income students attend private schools, $4.5 million forschool playground facilities and window replacement and repairs, and $10.75 millionawarded to the CFO and earmarked to various entities for education-relatedinitiatives. The act also includes $19 million for emergency planning and security,bioterrorism preparedness, and emergency personnel cross training; $14 million insupport of foster care improvements; and $373 million for criminal justice and courtoperation activities. Conference Bill General Provisions. The conference bill includes a provision included theHouse and Senate bills removing the prohibition on the use of District funds for costsassociated with implementing the District's Health Care Benefits Expansion Act of1992 (domestic partners program). The bill includes a provision included in theHouse bill that would prohibit the use of federal and District funds in support of anyboycott or propaganda campaign intended to support or defeat legislation pendingbefore Congress or any state legislature, but it would allow the use of local funds forlobbying activities except in the case of statehood or voting representation inCongress. The bill also would prohibit the use federal and local funds for a needleexchange program, medical marijuana, or abortion services, except in instanceswhere the life of the mother is threatened. For a summary and analysis of the generalprovisions contained in House, Senate, and conference versions of the District ofColumbia Appropriations Act, see CRS Report RL32045(pdf) , District of ColumbiaAppropriations Act for FY2004: Comparison of General Provisions ofP.L. 108-7 and the House and Senate Versions of H.R. 2765 . Table 2. District of Columbia Special Federal Payment Funds: Proposed FY2004 Appropriations (in millionsof dollars) Source: H.Rept. 108-214 , S.Rept. 108-142 , H.Rept. 108-401 . Note: The amount included in [ ] is a component part of the preceding unbracketedamount. a Provision would allow federal payments to courts, excluding those appropriated capital improvements to be used for defender services. b District must provide a 100% match of federal funds. c City requested $46 million as part of a special federal payment for EmergencyPreparedness. Senate bill provides for a stand-alone appropriation for FY2004. d Funds administered under the CFO account. e Funded under separate account for public charter schools. f Administration has requested funding for a similar program within the Labor, Health andHuman Services, Education and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for FY2004. g Subject to passage of authorizing legislation. h Notes the funds are to be used for education, security, economic development and healthinitiatives, but does not specify recipients of funds in the bill or its accompanying report. i Funded in FY2003 under CFO account. FY2004 funded under a separate account. Table 3. District of Columbia General Funds forFY2004 (in millions of dollars) Source: H.Rept. 108-214 . Whether to continue a needle exchange program funded with federal or District funds is one of several key policy issues that Congress will likely consider whenreviewing the District's appropriations for FY2004. The controversy surroundingfunding a needle exchange program touches on issues of home rule, public healthpolicy, and government sanctioning and facilitating the use of illegal drugs. Proponents of a needle exchange program contend that such programs reduce thespread of HIV among illegal drug users by reducing the incidence of shared needles. Opponents of these efforts contend that such programs amount to the governmentsanctioning illegal drugs by supplying drug-addicted persons with the tools to usethem. In addition, they contend that public health concerns raised about the spreadof AIDS and HIV through shared contaminated needles should be addressed throughdrug treatment and rehabilitation programs. Another view in the debate focuses onthe issue of home rule and the city's ability to use local funds to institute suchprograms free from congressional actions. The prohibition on the use of federal and District funds for a needle exchange program was first approved by Congress as Section 170 of the District of 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; and it restricted where privately fundedneedle exchange activities could take place. 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. District officials were seeking to lift the prohibition on the use of District funds for needle exchange programs. The House version of H.R. 2765 ,however, included a provision that continued to prohibit the use of both District andfederal funds for needle exchange programs. The House version of the bill wouldallow the use of private funds for needle exchange programs and would requireprivate and public entities that receive federal or District funds in support of otheractivities or programs to account for the needle exchange funds separately. TheSenate version of the bill proposed prohibiting only the use of federal funds for aneedle exchange program and allowing the use of District funds. The conference bill, H.R. 2673 , reflects the House position prohibiting the use of bothfederal and local funding for a needle exchange program, but allowing the use ofprivate funds. The medical marijuana initiative provision in the District of Columbia appropriations legislation is another issue that engenders controversy. The Districtof Columbia Appropriations Act for FY1999, P.L. 105-277 , included a provision thatprohibited the city from counting ballots of a voter-approved initiative that wouldhave allowed the medical use of marijuana to assist persons suffering debilitatinghealth conditions and diseases including cancer and HIV infection. Congress's power to prohibit the counting of a medical marijuana ballot initiative was challenged in a suit filed by the D.C. Chapter of the American CivilLiberties Union (ACLU). On September 17, 1999, District Court Judge RichardRoberts ruled that Congress, despite its unique legislative responsibility for theDistrict under Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution, did not possess the power tostifle or prevent political speech, which included the ballot initiative. (2) 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 , includes a provision that continues 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 a medical marijuana initiative on theNovember 2002 ballot. The District's Board of Elections and Ethics ruled that acongressional 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 ban on the use of public funds to put such a ballot initiative before the voters wasunconstitutional. (3) The judge stated that the effectof the amendment was to restrictthe plaintiff's First Amendment rights to engage in political speech. The decisionwas appealed by the Justice Department and on September 19, 2002, the U.S. Courtof Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed the ruling of the lower courtwithout comment. The appeals court issued its ruling on September 19, 2002, whichwas the deadline for printing ballots of the November 2002 general election. The House, Senate, and conference bills include a provision that continues the prohibition against the implementation of the medical marijuana ballot initiative. The public funding of abortion services for District of Columbia residents is a perennial 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 of 1980, 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. (4) In 1989,President Bush twice vetoed theDistrict's FY1990 appropriations act over the abortion issue. He signed P.L. 101-168 after insisting that Congress include language prohibiting the use of District revenuesto pay for abortion services except in cases where the mother's life was endangered. (5) The District successfully fought for the removal of the provision limiting District funding 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. 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 House, Senate, and conference bills would continue to restrict the use of District and federal funds for abortion services except in cases of rape or incest, orwhen the life of the mother is endangered. This is consistent with provisionsincluded in the House and Senate versions of the District of ColumbiaAppropriations Act for FY2003, P.L. 108-7 . P.L. 107-96 includes a provision lifting the congressional prohibition on the use of District funds to implement its Health Care Benefits Expansion Act. (6) 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, and that 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 the amendment noted that at least nine states, 136 localgovernments, and more than 4,000 companies offer benefits to domestic partners. (7) The House, Senate, and conference bills, consistent with the provision first included in the District's FY2002 Appropriations Act, include a general provisionthat allows the use of District funds to administer the program during FY2004. During the FY2004 appropriations process, key policy issues have emerged in the areas of special education, public charter schools, and school choice. Special Education. The District's special education program has long been characterized as ineffective and inefficient. (8) The system has been plagued by problems in transporting students to specialeducation facilities and in the timely evaluation of students who may have specialneeds. Delays in the period between a student's referral and assessment increase thenumber of students placed in private educational institutions, which adds to the costof special education. Concern about the cost of these delays prompted Congress toinclude a provision in the District of Columbia Appropriations Act for FY1999 thatextends the time period between referral and assessment of a student with specialeducation needs, as defined by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act(IDEA) (9) or the Rehabilitation Education Act, (10) from 50 days to 120 days. (11) P.L.108-7 , the Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2003, deleted the 120-day specialeducation evaluation and placement time period provision included in previousappropriations acts. In addition, the FY1999 Appropriations Act for the District of Columbia limited the amount of compensation payable to attorneys representing disabled students whoprevailed in an action brought against the District of Columbia Public Schools(DCPS) under the IDEA. Subsequent appropriations acts for FY2000 and FY2001also limited the amount of funds payable to attorneys successfully representingstudents seeking special education services. The FY1999 act limited attorneys' feesto an hourly rate of $50 and a case ceiling of $1,300; the FY2000 limit was $60 perhour and a case ceiling of $1,560; and the FY2001 rate was $125 per hour with a caseceiling of $2,500. The District's FY2002 Appropriations Act lifted the ceiling, in part, in response to the argument that the ceiling placed a hardship on households with limitedfinancial resources. District officials countered that the payment of attorney's feesdiverted significant funds from the provision of special education services, but wereunable to quantify the amount. As a consequence, the FY2002 Appropriationsdirected the superintendent of the DCPS to provide an itemized list of attorney's feesawarded plaintiffs who had prevailed in cases brought under the IDEA. (12) The actalso directed the General Accounting Office to report to the House and SenateAppropriations Committees on attorneys' fees awarded to prevailing plaintiffsseeking remedy under the IDEA in excess of the payment ceiling established in theAppropriations Acts for FY1999, FY2000, and FY2001. (13) Copies of the GAOreports cited above may be obtained at the GAO website. (14) The District of Columbia Appropriations Act for FY2003, P.L. 108-7 , limits to $4,000 the amount of appropriated funds that may be used to pay attorney's fees foractions brought against the DCPS under the IDEA. The $4,000 limit includes feesfor attorneys representing students and those defending the DCPS. Section 145 ofthe act requires attorneys in special education cases brought under the IDEA todisclose all financial, corporate, legal, or other interest or relationships with anyspecial education diagnostic services or schools to which the attorney may havereferred any client. The House, Senate, and conference bills would continue to limit attorney's fees in IDEA cases to $4,000, and would continue to require attorneys in such cases todisclose any interest in or relationship with any special education diagnostic servicesor schools to which the attorney may have referred any client. Charter Schools. Charter schools are public schools that operate independently of traditional local public schoolsystems under a charter granted by a public entity. The 104th Congress authorized theestablishment of charter schools in the District of Columbia, under the District ofColumbia School Reform Act of 1995 ( P.L. 104-134 ). Under the District ofColumbia's charter school law, charters may be granted by either the District ofColumbia Board of Education or the District of Columbia Public Charter SchoolBoard. In accordance with requirements implemented under P.L. 104-134 , bothDCPS schools and public charter schools are funded on a per-pupil basis accordingto a uniform per student funding formula (UPSFF). During the 2003-2004 schoolyear, 41 public charter schools are operating in the District of Columbia, enrollingover 11,750 students. (15) The District of Columbia Appropriations Act for FY2003, P.L. 108-7 , included several provisions in support of the public charter school movement in the Districtof Columbia. The Act appropriated $16.9 million for charter school activities,including $8 million for a credit enhancement revolving fund, and $5 million for afacilities improvement fund. In addition, the act established the Office of PublicCharter School Financing and Support and amended the District of Columbia SchoolReform Act of 1995 to establish the Charter School Fund. The act also included aprovision directing the General Accounting Office to provide a detailed analysis ofDistrict and nationwide efforts to establish adequate charter schools facilities. (16) These provisions were intended to address major issues confronting charter schoolsin the city -- finding, financing, and renovating adequate facilities. For FY2004, District officials have requested $6 million in federal special payments for charter schools. The House version of H.R. 2765 did notinclude any additional funding for District of Columbia charter schools for FY2004. The Senate version of the District of Columbia Appropriations Act would provide$13 million for public charter schools in the District of Columbia as part of a $40million federal payment for school improvement. (17) The charter school componentincludes $8 million for the Direct Loans Fund for Charter School Improvementestablished under P.L. 108-7 and $5 million for a new "City Build" charter schoolinitiative. The City Build charter school initiative would help create five new charterschools in city neighborhoods that are in need of development. The conference billwould also provide $13 million for charter schools as part of a $40 million federalpayment for school improvements. School Voucher Program. In its FY2004 budget submission, the Bush Administration requested $75 million for aChoice Incentive Fund that would provide competitive awards to states, localeducational agencies (LEAs), and community based organizations (CBOs) thatexpanded opportunities for parents of children who attend low-performing schoolsto attend higher-performing public schools (including charter schools) and privateschools. Under the administration's proposal, a portion would be reserved for schoolchoice programs in the District of Columbia. On May 1, 2003, Mayor Anthony Williams endorsed a Bush Administration school choice initiative intended to provide scholarships to assist eligible Districtschoolchildren to attend private elementary and secondary schools. The mayor'sendorsement followed that of Peggy Cafritz, President of the District of ColumbiaBoard of Education, who announced her support for vouchers in a Washington Post editorial on March 29, 2003. (18) The mayorand board of education president endorsedthe concept of private school vouchers as a means of improving educational optionsfor District public-school children and transforming the city's faltering publicschools. Local supporters of a voucher program insist that it must be federallyfunded and must not reduce funding for the city's traditional public schools andpublic charter schools. The mayor's support of a voucher program has been criticized by the city's Delegate to Congress, Eleanor Holmes Norton, who characterized the BushAdministration proposal as an affront to home rule. (19) Opponents of the voucherprogram contend that it will drain needed funds from public education and will be ofminimal benefit to the majority of District school children. While the U.S. SupremeCourt has ruled in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris that the Constitution permits publicfunding of school vouchers for attendance at religiously affiliated schools ininstances where parents have the opportunity of selecting from a range of options thatincludes public and private secular schools, many still object to allowing public fundsto be used to pay tuition for attendance at religiously affiliated schools. (20) On July 10, 2003, the House Committee on Government Reform passed H.R. 2556 , the DC Parental Choice Incentive Act of 2003, by a vote of22 to 21. The bill would authorize the establishment of a federal competitive grantprogram in which the Secretary of Education would award grants for the operationof a scholarship program to enable children from low-income families in the Districtof Columbia to attend private elementary or secondary schools located in the Districtof Columbia. Under the program, students who are residents of the District ofColumbia and who are from families with incomes not exceeding 185 percent of thepoverty line could apply for scholarships valued at up to $7,500 per academic year. The program would be authorized at $15 million for FY2004 and such sums asnecessary through FY2008. (21) On July 17, 2003, House Committee on Appropriations reported H.R. 2765 , which would authorize a special federal payment of $10million for a school choice program in the District of Columbia, subject to theprogram's authorization. (22) On September 5, 2003,during floor debate on H.R.2765, the House considered two school voucher-related amendments to thebill. Delegate Norton introduced H.Amdt. 367 , which would havedeleted from the bill the proposed $10 million to fund the school choice program. The amendment failed to pass by a vote of 203 to 203 (Roll Call Vote No. 479). TheHouse approved by a vote of 209 to 206 (Roll Call Vote No. 490) an amendmentoffered by Representative Tom Davis. H.Amdt. 490 would authorizea school voucher program in the District of Columbia for students whose familyincome does not exceed 185% of the federal poverty level. Students will be eligiblefor up to $7,500 in funds to attend a private elementary or high school in the District. On September 4, 2003, the Senate Committee on Appropriations reported S. 1583 (later renumbered H.R. 2765 ), which wouldauthorize $13 million for a school voucher program as part of a $40 million federalpayment for school improvement in the District of Columbia. (23) Title II of H.R.2765 would authorize the DC Student Opportunity Scholarship Act of 2003for five years. The bill would provide scholarship funds to low-income parents --parents whose incomes do not exceed 185% of the federal poverty level -- ofchildren attending underperforming public schools. Grant funds would be awardedon a competitive basis to eligible entities, including the District of Columbiagovernment, a nonprofit organization, or a consortium of nonprofit organizations, toadminister the program. The act would limit annual scholarship amounts to $7,500per pupil. It would prohibit an eligible entity or participating school fromdiscriminating against program participants or applicants on the basis of race, color,national origin, religion, or sex, but it would allow students to attend religious-basedand single-sex private schools. On November 18, 2003, the Senate considered andpassed the bill, including Title II. Title III of Division C of the conference bill( H.R. 2673 ) includes many of the same provisions included in theSenate bill. It would authorize a five-year school choice program in the District ofColumbia. It would prevent entities participating in the program from discriminatingagainst participants and applicants on the basis of race, color, national origin,religion, or sex, but would allow for single-sex schools operated by religiousorganizations as long as single-sex schools are consistent with the religious tenets orbeliefs of the school. For a detailed analysis of policy issues surrounding the Districtschool voucher proposal, see CRS Report RL32019 , The DC Parental ChoiceIncentive Act of 2003: Policy Issues and Analysis , by [author name scrubbed]. 

Summary: On February 3, 2003, the Bush Administration released its FY2004 budget recommendations. The Administration's proposed budget included $420.5 million in federal payments to the Districtof Columbia. This includes $166.5 million for the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agencyfor the District of Columbia, an independent federal agency that has assumed managementresponsibility for the District's pretrial services, adult probation, and parole supervision functions. In addition, the Administration requested $163.8 million in support of court operations, and $32million for Defender Services. These three functions represent 86.3% of the President's proposed$420.5 million in federal payments to the District of Columbia. On July 9, 2003, the Bush Administration transmitted the city's $5.7 billion proposed operating budget to Congress for its review and approval. In addition, the District requested $916 million inspecial federal payments, including $159 million for emergency preparedness assistance and $75million for public safety. On July 17, 2003, the House Appropriations Committee reported H.R. 2765 , the District of Columbia Appropriations Act for FY2004 ( H.Rept. 108-214 ). On September 9, 2003,the House approved H.R. 2765. The House bill recommended $466 million in specialfederal payments for the District of Columbia. The bill includes $17 million for a college tuitionassistance plan, $15 million for security planning, and $163.1 million for court services and offendersupervision. H.R. 2765 also includes $10 million in special federal payments for a schoolchoice program designed to provide financial assistance to families of District school-age studentsattending private and parochial schools. On November 18, 2003, the Senate passed its version of H.R. 2765 ( S.Rept. 108-142 ). As passed, the bill recommended an appropriation of $545 million in special federalpayments to the District. This includes $17 million for a college tuition assistance program; $15million for emergency planning and security; and $377.5 million in court and criminal justice-relatedassistance. The bill also includes $40 million for public education, charter schools, and schoolvouchers, including $13 million for a school voucher program. On November 25, 2003, a House and Senate conference committee reported H.R. 2673 ( H.Rept. 108-401 ), the Consolidated Appropriations Act for FY2004, which combined sixappropriations bills -- including the FY2004 District of Columbia Appropriations Act -- thatCongress was unable to complete before the close of the first session of the 108th Congress. TheHouse agreed to the conference report on December 8, 2003, while the Senate postponed finalconsideration of the measure until Congress reconvenes in January 2004. The conference billincludes $13 million for a school voucher program, and would continue to allow the District to useits local funds to administer a domestic partners health insurance act, prohibit the use of District orfederal funds to prepare a medical marijuana ballot initiative, and restrict the use of federal orDistrict funds for a needle exchange program and for abortion services, except in instances of rapeor incest or a threat to the mother's health. This report will be updated as warranted. Key Policy Staff Division abbreviations: DSP = Domestic Social Policy Division; G&F = Government and Finance Division.