FY2002 CASE STUDY
Citizens’
Guide to the Congressional Approval
Process for Washington, DC’s Local Budget
Analysis by Mark David Richards, Ph.D., Sociologist, mark@bisconti.com
February 2002
Each year in Washington, District of Columbia, like in other states and
cities, the local government develops a draft budget and financial plan
based on data from its departments (revenue, police, fire, human services,
parks and recreation, etc.). DC’s elected officials hold public hearings
and issue a final working budget. In other parts of the nation, that is
the end of the process—the state or city gets on with its business. But
not in DC. DC’s political status has resulted in a governing arrangement
that is costly, hard to follow, and frustrating, even for long-term
residents.
In DC, the budget and financial plan is subject to the Congressional
Appropriations Process. No American state or Territory is subjected to
this process, and no American state or Territory subjects its cities to
such. DC’s elected officials do not have legislative, budgetary, or
judicial autonomy. Therefore, the budget remains a "proposed
draft" until the House of Representatives and the Senate each
individually review and modify DC’s budget and meet in conference to
agree on a single budget, and send it to the President for approval or
veto.
For the political party that controls Congress, the current arrangement
is a powerful lever to control local officials and policy. DC gets caught
in national partisan fights as Congress feuds eloquently over whether to
allow DC elected officials and residents to implement their budget, or
whether to overrule them. DC residents and Congress have had ongoing
disputes about the local governing arrangement, public policy decisions,
and taxation without representation for 200 years. For an outstanding
analysis of the federal/local relationship since "Home Rule"
(1973) see "Congress and the Governance of the Nation’s Capital:
The Conflict of Federal and Local Interests," by Howard University
Political Science Professor Charles Wesley Harris, Ph.D.
Until the Constitution is amended, or DC’s status is changed to make
it a state or part of another state, DC must rely on Congressional
restraint or try to persuade Congress to pass laws to give DC legislative,
budgetary, or judicial autonomy. This analysis provides background on the
current governing arrangement in DC, and examines the Congressional
Appropriations Process of the FY 2002 DC local budget.
DC Has a Unique—and Peculiar—Political
Status
DC finds itself in a peculiar situation that does not fit traditional
definitions, making it is hard to compare to other areas. DC has been a
part of the U.S. for longer than most states, but it is not a state or
located within a state. According to Jamin Raskin, American University
Professor of Law, the federal government defines DC as a state for legal
purposes in over 500 statutes. The DC government performs most state
functions, as well as county and city functions. DC is a hybrid
jurisdiction. Some call it a federal seat of government or District, some
a city-state, some a colony, and some a plantation.
The architects of the federal system granted Congress the right of
exclusive legislative authority over its seat of government in Article 1,
Section 8, Clause 17 of the 1787 U.S. Constitution. This was primarily to
assure that federal officials and buildings would be secure from mobs and
disruptive events that were common in the early years of the country, just
after the American Revolution. (To read about this Clause, see http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/a1_8_17.html.)
Thanks to this clause, Congress is not subject to the same Constitutional
limitations in DC that restrict its power in the fifty states. In DC,
Congress can modify all local laws and budgetary priorities without the
consent of the governed.
DC residents have not had the same rights or safeguards as Americans
who live in states since 1801 when Congress assumed the power of
legislative authority. DC residents have never had voting representatives
in the Senate or in the House of Representatives to protect their
interests. Since 1961, they have had a limited Presidential vote in which
their number of electors is limited to the number of the smallest state,
rather than by their population like other areas. The President appoints
their local judges and public prosecutor. And although Congress has
delegated power to a locally elected mayor and thirteen-member City
Council since 1973, Congress has not granted DC judicial, legislative, or
budgetary autonomy. DC has a "limited Home Rule" government.
That is why some DC residents describe the area as a colony or a
plantation.
The current arrangement is not characteristic of representative
democracy in the American tradition of the right to local self-government,
but there is no requirement in the Constitution to practice democracy in
the nation’s capital. That choice is for Congress and American citizens
to make. Nationally representative surveys of 1,000 U.S. adults that I
directed show there is majority agreement that, in principle, DC citizens
should have control of their local government and equal voting rights in
the Senate and the House of Representatives. But many in Congress are not
interested in granting DC these rights. A win-win solution has not yet
been identified that could bridge the partisan divisions on this issue.
Taxation without Representation
Federal taxes. Like citizens living
in states, DC residents pay their full share of federal taxes—nearly $3
billion each year. DC pays higher per capita taxes than 49 of 50 states
(only Connecticut citizens paid higher per capita federal taxes than DC
citizens). Residents don’t mind paying their fair share of federal
taxes. However, they object to not have voting representatives in the
Senate or the House of Representatives, and to having to go through the
federal Appropriations process to get their local budget approved.
Like federal Territories, DC has a non-voting Delegate in the House of
Representatives. Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton has been quite
effective in advocating on behalf of DC residents. Having voting
representatives in Congress would help DC express its opinions and protect
its interests in federal legislation. But should Congress review DC’s
local budget at all?
DC receives benefits from the federal government for its federal tax
payment. Like states, counties, and cities, DC qualifies for and is able
to receive grants for specific federal priorities and programs. For
example, DC receives categorical grants for Medicaid, Medicare, health and
human services, and transportation. Program administrators must meet
federal requirements to receive the grants, and money must be used for the
purposes specified.
In the FY 2002 budget, DC expects to receive $1.54 billion in federal
categorical grants, which account for about a quarter of DC’s $6 billion
operating budget. This money is not a federal payment for services that DC
provides or a payment in lieu of taxes—it is a return on the money DC
pays in federal taxes.
The percentage DC receives in federal grants is not out of line with
what many states receive. According to the White House Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), of the $1.152 trillion spent by all state and
local governments in 2000, $242 billion—21 percent—came from federal
grants.
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the amount and percentage of
federal spending varies from state to state. The amount depends on factors
such as population, age of population, and poverty level. For example, in
2000, California received $176 billion in federal spending, compared to $3
billion received in Wyoming.
District of Columbia taxes. Like in
the fifty states, in addition to federal taxes permanent DC residents also
pay "state" (District) taxes. But, unlike the fifty states, DC’s
local budget goes through the Congressional Appropriations Process after
it has been prepared and approved by DC local elected officials. In this
way, the federal government treats DC more like a federal agency than a
state or a city.
DC must start its budget planning activities months in advance in order
to allow Congress the time it needs for its approval process. Preparation
for the FY 2002 budget began in August 2000, when the Mayor’s Office of
Budget and Planning (OBP) distributed budget development guidelines to
municipal agencies. Agencies were given until December 2000 to prepare
budget requests that matched mayoral priorities. OBP updated economic data
and projections, analyzed and revised budget submissions, and submitted a
baseline budget to the Mayor in January 2001.
The Mayor finalized and presented the proposed budget and financial
plan to the DC Council on March 14, 2001. Between that time and April 6,
the Council held 61 public hearings and Council committees marked up and
reported on agency budgets. On May 1, 2001, the Council approved the
budget. To see the FY 2002 Operating Budget, go to http://dc.gov/mayor/budget_2002/index.shtm;
to see an organizational chart of DC government, look under Special
Chapters.
On June 4, 2001, the Mayor submitted the budget to The White House
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the President submitted it to
Congress as part of the White House annual budget request.
Congress is routinely late in passing the DC budget because local DC
issues are not their highest priority, and the discussions often get mired
in partisan conflicts. A late budget delays even further the lag time
between planning and implementation and costs DC added money. According to
the Mayor’s office, in 1996 the federal government delayed passing DC’s
budget for seven months. In 1998 and 2000, it delayed DC’s budget by a
month and a half, and in 1999 by three weeks. In 2001 (FY 2002
Appropriations), Congress was over two months late—it approved a DC
budget on December 7, 2001. The terrorist attacks on the World Trade
Towers and the Pentagon were certainly a higher priority. Because the FY
2001 budget year ended on September 30, 2001, Congress passed Continuing
Resolutions so DC could continue operating under the 2001 budget until it
had its new spending plan on December 21, 2001.
In Congress, DC’s budget was reviewed and modified by the nine
members of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on DC, the full 65 member
House Committee on Appropriations, the 435 member House of
Representatives, the seven member Senate Subcommittee on DC, the 29 member
Senate Committee on Appropriations, and the 100 member Senate. A more
detailed description of the FY 2002 process is described below.
The staffers on the Congressional committees in each chamber manage the
budget process for the elected officials and stay behind the scenes. Few
in DC know who committee staffers are or precisely what they do, even
though they exert great authority over DC’s elected officials and
citizens. Periodically, Congressional Members feud with staffers. For
example, this year in the House floor debate over the conference report in
which the Senate and House reconciled differences of opinion, the
longest-serving member of the House Subcommittee, Randy "Duke"
Cunningham (R-CA), said he would vote against the bill because staffers
had apparently removed provisions to put a cap on legal fees related to
lawsuits filed under the Americans with Disabilities Act that he had
inserted in years past on an issue he cared about deeply. "Am I
upset?," he asked the chamber. "Yes, especially since it was
staff-driven. Who is supposed to control this chamber, the staff or the
Members?"
After the Senate and the House agreed on the budget, Congress sent it
back to the President for signature or veto. He signed the DC
Appropriation bill on December 21, 2001.
This federal review process costs DC taxpayers money. According to The
Report of the Commission on Budget and Financial Priorities of the
District of Columbia, known as the "Rivlin Report," this process
makes budget projections more difficult because it adds six months to the
process, and it costs DC taxpayers $3 million annually. The cost of
reporting mandates added to DC government responsibilities has not been
assessed.
This process also costs citizens living in states—they pay for
Congressional oversight committees and staff.
Responsibility without Resources
The DC government is responsible for state, county, city, and special
district functions in one government. DC has the taxing powers of a state,
county, and municipality. DC faces unique problems that increase its
government operating costs.
DC has higher personal income taxes than most areas. According to the
Mayor’s FY 2000 budget analysis submitted with the budget and financial
plan, the tax burden of DC citizens is higher than the nation’s largest
51 cities:
| Income level |
DC Tax Burden Relative to 51 City
Average |
| $25,000 |
+6.9% |
| $50,000 |
+7.9% |
| $75,000 |
+13.2% |
| $100,000 |
+16.4% |
| $150,000 |
+19.4% |
Some of the high tax burden has been caused by local government
mismanagement over the years. DC’s government is making progress in
addressing inefficiencies that have festered for decades, and DC residents
will not be satisfied until there are considerably more improvements in
service delivery. But, local government mismanagement is only part of the
problem.
According to the National Association to Restore Pride in the Nation’s
Capital http://www.narpac.org/RCA.HTM,
DC’s share of the regional taxable income is very low—approximately
five percent. At the same time, the cost of government in DC is 2.2 times
higher than adjacent jurisdictions ($8,825 per DC resident compared to
$4,000 per Delmarva resident). NARPAC reports that DC spends more than its
neighbors in nearly all categories, except higher education and roads: DC
spends twice as much for administration and debt interest, three times as
much for social services, and four times as much for public safety. NARPAC
finds that, largely due to the high rate of poverty, DC requires 25
percent more public funds than surrounding jurisdictions.
NARPAC shows that there are more poor people living in DC than in
neighboring jurisdictions put together. The burden to support each poor
person is carried by 2.6 non-poor workers in DC, compared with 17.8
non-poor workers in the suburbs. This increases not only the amount of
government funds needed, but also the number of government employees
needed. NARPAC estimates that "the burden of the poor on DC taxpayers
is likely to be eight times higher than for the surrounding suburbs."
NARPAC concludes that the major reason for high costs in DC is that it is
"an incomplete, isolated, inner city trying to function as a
multi-level jurisdiction," and that DC "will have difficulty
competing with the suburbs unless some form of mandatory ‘poverty-sharing’
arrangements are made throughout the national capital metro area."
However, the suburbs, located in separate political jurisdictions in
Maryland and Virginia, have not expressed an interest in poverty-sharing
programs. NARPAC also believes the DC government can become more
efficient.
Along with DC’s high poverty burden, DC also services the federal
government, which does not appear to compensation DC adequately. The
Washington Post commented on DC’s "structural deficit"
associated with the presence of the federal establishment in an editorial
(Nov. 30, 2001). It reported that even after the 1997 reform in which the
federal government assumed financial responsibility for DC’s courts and
prisons, "[t]he District must still perform $486 million in
state-level functions, must still provide $227 million in police and fire
services to non-taxpaying federal properties and must still forgo $193
million in lost tax revenue from exempted federal government-related
activity."
Congress pays no taxes or payment in lieu of taxes on the valuable land
it owns in DC and it exempts many organizations from taxes—41 percent of
DC assessed property valued at $32 billion is exempted, 65 percent of
which belongs to the federal government (see The Orphaned Capital by
economist Carol O’Cleireacain, Ph.D.). The DC Tax Revision Commission
advised that the federal government should make a Payment to DC in Lieu of
Taxes (PILOT), but Congress has not yet chosen to support this approach.
In addition, Congress forbids DC from raising revenues from commuters
who work in DC full-time but live in other states—this represents nearly
70 percent of DC’s workforce. The vast majority of commuters are from
the "Washington Region," and live just miles away in suburbs in
Virginia and Maryland. They do not contribute any part of employee taxes
to DC. DC is the only area in the U.S. that has this restriction against a
reciprocal tax imposed. According to Dr. O’Cleireacain, the result is a
financial windfall for Virginia and Maryland, but a loss to DC of a
billion dollars a year. Although a commuter tax has been discussed for
many years, there are other proposals that could accomplish the same
objectives as the commuter tax. One proposal by Congresswoman Eleanor
Holmes Norton would have the federal government pay DC for the money lost
by the restriction. Another proposal by the National Association to
Restore Pride in America’s Capital (NARPEC) would have Maryland and
Virginia pay a "Payment in Lieu of (Commuter) Taxes."
Overall, the Mayor’s office estimates that DC loses approximately
$1.7 billion yearly in uncompensated costs imposed by the federal
government. This financial loss to DC contributed to a financial crisis in
the mid-1990s that (from a local DC point-of-view) led the federal
government to take control of DC’s courts and prisons. In essence, much
of the federal contribution to DC could be considered a hidden subsidy to
the states of Maryland and Virginia. Those states value this arrangement
and protect their interests in Congress. Maryland has ten and Virginia has
thirteen voting members of Congress. Some Members from those states always
serve on the Congressional committees that oversee DC. This sometimes
causes a conflict of interest.
Before 1997, Congress provided a "federal payment" to DC for
services it receives and because it doesn’t pay taxes. The federal
payment was a grant of approximately $660 million (or $2.50 per U.S.
citizen per year) that could be used for any priority identified by the DC
government—it was not a categorical grant. Last century for a brief
period after Congress removed all voting rights at all levels of
government (limited local self-government was restored in 1973), the
federal government contributed 50 percent of DC’s budget. But for most
of DC’s history the contribution by the federal government for services
provided and in lieu of taxes has been less than 20 percent. In
"Washington: A History of the Capital, 1800-1950," Constance
McLaughlin Green showed that this issue has been a point of conflict since
DC’s formation.
Federal Contribution to DC for Services and in Lieu of
Taxes as a Percentage of Local Operating Budget
(Source: District of Columbia 2002 Appropriations Bill
Report by the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives)
In 1997, the "federal payment" was cancelled and Congress
agreed to pay for certain "state" functions (DC courts,
corrections, and offender supervision), which accounts for a good portion
of the federal share that Congress added to DC’s FY 2002 budget during
the Appropriations process (these costs are approximately $350 million, or
5 percent of the DC budget). The loss of these state functions has made it
difficult for DC’s elected officials to discuss DC’s desire to become
a state.
In the FY 2002 Congressional Appropriations process, Congress
contributed $408 million during the Appropriations process, or 6 percent
of the total. Most of this amount is designated for courts and prisons.
Some is for emergency planning and security costs related to the September
11 terrorist attacks, and some is for a program that allows DC college
students to pay in-state tuition at state universities nationwide. Other
funds were for Members’ favorite projects and programs.
District officials and residents were very grateful for these
contributions. However, this federal contribution is not a payment for
services and tax exemptions because this money must be used for specific
programs and DC cannot count on receiving it from year to year—it is not
derived from an equitable formula. Under the current arrangement, the
federal contribution is somewhat arbitrary and can even depend on the
perceived "good behavior" of DC’s elected officials. This can
make it difficult to implement the will of the people that local elected
officials represent.
The total FY 2002 operating budget is $6,048 billion (not including
capital). Of the total, DC collects 74 percent of its local budget from
local sources. It collects 61 percent of revenues from local taxpayers and
Intra-District funds and 13 percent from private funds (Water and Sewer
Authority, Lottery, Washington Convention Center Enterprise Fund,
Washington Aqueduct, etc.). The DC government expects to qualify for
$1,543,041 in federal grant programs, which would account for 26 percent
of the operating budget.
Sources of DC Local Operating Budget
Local DC Funds: 74%
Congress Uses the DC Appropriations Process to
Legislate for DC
The most frustrating aspect of DC’s budgeting process for both DC
elected officials and residents is that Congress uses the DC
Appropriations bill to legislate for DC by adding "riders" to
the General Provisions section of the DC Appropriations Bill. Congress
adds these riders to micromanage DC citizens and their elected officials.
Often, the intent of the Congressmen who add these riders is upstanding.
But, since the Members who add riders are not subject to the will of the
people in DC, they can be out of step with local opinion. Some riders ride
on and on and have been added to DC’s budget every year since 1973. This
process can be seen as a game of "hide the ball."
In fact, each year Congress adds dozens of riders. The number varies
from year to year. In 2001, Congress added nearly 70 riders. Professor
Harris points out that "In theory, legislating in an appropriations
bill is prohibited by the rules of the House of Representatives, but this
rule is often ignored and Congress has intervened in a variety of policy
areas, including personnel, public safety, education, land use, and public
works." In my analysis, the most recent riders fell into six broad
categories:
- Budgetary controls and operating and reporting requirements,
- Contracting restrictions,
- DC government and employee restrictions and powers
- Education and school restrictions,
- Legal overrides and social restrictions ("social riders"),
and
- Riders requested of Congress by DC government.
DC’s elected officials oppose the imposition of riders because they
violate the spirit of Home Rule and short-circuit policy decisions that
otherwise would receive serious public input and debate. Nevertheless,
officials also realize that adding riders is "the way the game is
played," so even they occasionally request a rider be added.
Members of Congress argue that it is their Constitutional
responsibility to legislate for DC in the federal interest and to impose
"the values of the nation." But, as Professor Harris has noted,
Congress does not have a means test or has not carefully defined "the
federal interest" to use in justifying the addition of riders to DC’s
budget—it is often arbitrary or ideological.
Legal overrides and social restrictions especially aggravate DC
citizens and spur them to action. Each year since 1997, The Stand Up for
Democracy in DC Coalition has mounted a campaign to draw attention to the
question of local self-government. Some citizens have even gone to
Congress and, during the vote on the floor of the House of
Representatives, yelled "DC votes no!" and "The capital of
our nation is the last plantation—Free DC!" Each time, they were
arrested, charged with intent to disrupt Congress, and tried by jury. Thus
far, juries have not found these citizens guilty because jury members
determined that citizens were trying to express an opinion in a
legislative body in which they do not have voting representation.
Though DC residents are not counted in Congress, some like to think of
Congress as playing the role of DC’s "state legislature."
Although this appears to be accurate, this comparison is difficult because
DC residents did not elect members of Congress and have no way to hold
them accountable. Residents of state capital cities have full voting
rights in their state legislatures. Although states usually contribute a
significant proportion of a city’s budget, state legislatures do not
control local budgets. Dr. O’Cleireacain reports that in Boston,
Memphis, and Baltimore, state aid accounts for 28 to 38 percent of general
revenues. Even in cities in financial crisis, a financial control board—not
the whole state legislature—is established to review the budget.
While DC residents recognize that there are many honorable Members of
Congress, many DC residents consider Congress to be unfairly imposing its
values and priorities in an area where it cannot be held accountable to
citizens, as in their own jurisdictions.
Description of the 2002 DC Congressional Appropriations Process
Here is a brief description of the steps and some of the debate in the
Congressional Appropriations Process to approve DC’s local budget after
the Mayor submitted it to the President, and he submitted it to Congress.
The full bills and debates can be found through "Thomas," http://thomas.loc.gov/,
the primary source of Congressional legislative information on the
Internet. See Status of FY2002 Appropriations Bills at: http://thomas.loc.gov/home/approp/appover.html
Round 1—Chairman’s Mark: On September 6, 2001, Rep. Joe Knollenberg
(R-MI), Chairman of the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia of the
Committee on Appropriations of the U.S. House of Representatives, cut 35
riders, which was approved by the Subcommittee. D.C.’s non-voting
Delegate, Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton, said this was the best
Chairman’s mark DC had seen in years—indeed, it removed many of the
budgetary controls and reporting requirements, many of which have been
added into DC law and standard practices. Nevertheless, over 30
Congressional riders remained on DC’s budget bill. In addition, about
half of the language submitted in the original budget by DC’s local
elected officials was deleted from the District’s budget submission.
This angered local elected officials and created conflict. This issue was
not discussed much in public forums, but Rep. Knollenberg and Rep. Chaka
Fattah (D-PA) promised Congresswoman Norton that "Members will
continue to meet on the other disputed items before the bill goes to the
floor and, if necessary, will continue to work on those disputed items
even in conference." http://www.house.gov/norton/20010920b.htm.
On September 10, the Stand Up for Democracy in DC Coalition held a
press briefing in front of DC’s City Hall to announce its Free DC Budget
Campaign http://www.standupfordemocracy.org,
after which participants walked to Capitol Hill and delivered a bipartisan
consensus letter signed by over 300 civic groups and individual citizens
calling on Congress to eliminate all riders. Stand Up hoped to draw public
attention to the budget process and Congressional meddling.
The next day terrorists attacked and destroyed the World Trade Towers
and a portion of the Pentagon. DC’s budget bill became low priority in
light of the national tragedy. Over time, articles in The Washington
Post and The Washington Times focused on a few controversial
provisions (especially Domestic Partnership), but neither provided the
level of detail that could help DC citizens understand the larger issues. The
Washington Post wrote an editorial in support of a DC Home Rule
budget.
Round 2—The Committee on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives, chaired by Rep. C. W. "Bill" Young (R-FL),
reviewed and modified the budget on September 20 (http://www.house.gov/appropriations/news/2002/02dcfull.htm).
Overall, the funding level approved was the same as recommended by the
Appropriations Committee: a District share of $6.048 billion and a federal
contribution of $408 million (6% of the total). The nation was uniting in
response to the terrorist attack, and there was little desire for partisan
feuding over DC’s budget.
In light of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks and the obvious
lack of emergency preparedness in both the local government and on Capitol
Hill, Rep. David Obey (D-WI) and Rep. C.W. "Bill" Young (R-FL)
proposed $16 million be spent for security planning in the capital (This
money had previously been set aside to reimburse DC for expenses incurred
in providing security for World Bank/IMF meetings and protests, which were
cancelled after the attacks). Congressional leaders, ignoring flaws in
their own emergency plan, attacked District leaders instead. To make their
point, a restriction was added to the emergency planning contribution that
would withhold half of certain federal monies to the District until the
security plan was submitted to the appropriations committees. The
amendment was accepted. The Mayor’s office had already accelerated an
emergency plan that was under development. http://www.washingtondc.gov/citizen/preparedness/index.shtm,
The House loosened one restriction that it had held in place since 1992
when DC passed the Health Care Benefits Expansion Act that would allow DC
domestic partners (straight or gay, platonic, or otherwise) to register
with the Mayor’s office, require all health care facilities to allow
domestic partners visitation rights, and permit DC employees to buy health
insurance for a registered partner at the employees’ own expense. Every
year since 1992, a rider was added to forbid the DC government from using
any funds—local or federal—to implement the law. A Domestic
Partnership Coalition had worked since that time to try to persuade
Members to remove the restriction on the use of local funds. At one time
previously, the Senate approved such a measure, but the House did not.
This year, Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-AZ) made the proposal to change the
restriction so that it would remain illegal for DC to use federal funds to
implement DC’s law, but it would permit DC to use local funds. A
bipartisan majority (of Democrats and moderate Republicans) accepted his
proposal. Here is the language of the revised rider:
"None of the Federal funds made available in this Act may be
used to implement or enforce the Health Care Benefits Expansion Act of
1992 (D.C. Law 9-114; D.C. Official Code, sec. 32-701 et seq.) or to
otherwise implement or enforce any system of registration of unmarried,
cohabiting couples, including but not limited to registration for the
purpose of extending employment, health, or governmental benefits to
such couples on the same basis that such benefits are extended to
legally married couples."
The Kolbe amendment triggered "Action Alerts" from many
national organizations urging members from across the nation to contact
their Congressional leaders to express an opinion about how Congress
should change DC’s local budget:
Two other notable "social riders" were carried over from the
previous year. One related to an Initiative that 69 percent of DC voters
passed on November 3, 1998 to allow doctors to prescribe medical marijuana
to dying cancer and AIDS patients (Initiative 59 passed in all eight Wards
and in every voter precinct). At the time of the election, Congress wrote
a rider that forbid the DC Board of Elections and Ethics from counting the
vote. After nearly a year, the courts ruled that the vote had to be
counted. When Congress discovered that 69 percent had approved the
Initiative (similar to those passed in Western states), it wrote a new
rider forbidding the DC government from using any federal or local funds
to implement the policy.
The other controversial rider blocked the use of any funds—federal or
local—to implement an AIDS prevention program (clean needle exchange)
for drug users. The program has been tested and endorsed by the American
Medical Association (AMA) and the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) as an
effective strategy to reduce the spread of AIDS and to intervene to
encourage rehabilitation. It has been adopted in many parts of the country
where transmission of AIDS via drug abuse is a problem.
Round 3—The House of Representatives: On September 25, 2001, the full
House of Representatives passed H.R. 2944 by 327 to 88 (Voting for: 188
Democrat, 138 Republican, 1 Independent), with the same funding level as
proposed by the Subcommittee and approved by the Committee. http://www.house.gov/appropriations/news/2002/02dcfloor.htm;
for the full Bill go to http://thomas.loc.gov/home/
and type in the Bill number H.R. 2944).
The terrorist attacks had a unifying effect on the nation and its
leadership in Congress. This carried over to the DC Appropriations
process. During the floor debate, Congressman Chaka Fattah (D-PA) urged
his colleagues to pass the DC Appropriations bill without adding
amendments. He argued that the issues in dispute were local in nature, not
national. He said:
"All that is good about this bill could and hopefully will not
be overshadowed by some of the activity that will take place after the
general debate. There will be amendments unfortunately in which some of
my colleagues, I believe, perhaps, well intentioned, but nonetheless,
will attempt to overrule, not just the wisdom of the full committee when
we made certain decisions about how the bill should be finally shaped
when it was brought to the floor, but, moreover, they will attempt in
these amendments to micromanage and to overrule the local city council
and the mayor. … The District of Columbia and its citizens, who have
sent more people to be involved in our military than many of our States,
they pay a higher share of taxes than some of our States in terms of the
total aggregate amount, deserve a right to have their votes count. They
have no vote here on the floor of the House or in the U.S. Senate. The
only place that they really have a vote is when they vote for city
council and for the mayor. We should respect those votes in a way in
which when the city council and the mayor come to a consensus around
even controversial public policy, that we avoid the need for the
Congress to try to sit as a larger city council. We come from other
places and other towns, many who have made decisions on these similar
types of matters, and we should not, unless it is a matter of national
policy for the whole country, interject ourselves in the affairs of the
capital city. I would hope that we would avoid that today...."
Congresswoman Norton also appealed to her voting Congressional
colleagues to approve the local budget and highlighted recent
bipartisanship. She said:
"Mr. Chairman, especially at a time when Congress has made a
successful effort, at least thus far, to put aside the usual quarrels, I
hope that the bipartisanship we have shown on other matters will be
especially evident on the D.C. appropriation. After all, it is the
smallest. It is really tiny. It is a tiny fraction of every other
appropriation. It consists almost entirely of local funds, raised from
local taxpayers. It is a local budget that does not belong here at all.
I apologize that you are distracted by having to get into the business
of a local jurisdiction. You should be embarrassed at a time like this
to have to do so. Finding ourselves distracted from the most serious
business, the business of war and peace following a vicious attack on
American soil, I can only hope that this body will not allow the local
budget of a city to detain us long or headlines to read after this
matter is done here, Congress of the United States Overturns the Laws in
Its Own Capital, even as it is asking, telling us, that the country is
fighting in behalf of democracy. At a time when our country's message to
the world is that we are defending democracy and freedom, I ask that no
attempt be made to nullify the democratically expressed will of the
people of the District of Columbia by attachments that overturn local
law."
As expected, amendments were proposed. An amendment by Rep. Dave Weldon
(FL) sought to prohibit all funds from being used for implementation of
the District of Columbia domestic partnership act. Mr. Hosteller (IN) rose
to support the amendment. He said:
"We have been told that it is a matter of home rule, and we have
been lectured that Federal interference is both unwarranted and
unconscionable. Mr. Chairman, I would remind my colleagues of the oath
they took to uphold the United States Constitution. I would remind them
that article 1, section 8 of that great document states that ‘Congress
shall have the power to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases
whatsoever over the District.’ The District of Columbia was
established as a unique entity. In order to prevent any one State from
exercising undue influence over the Capital city, the Founders wisely
created a Federal district that would belong to the whole Nation. As
such, the District of Columbia should be a reflection of the values
shared by the rest of the Nation."
Rep. James Moran (D-VA) spoke against the Weldon Amendment, explaining
how DC was being singled out on a policy that had widespread national
support in the medical community. He said:
"In 1992, the District of Columbia passed a domestic partnership
program. We have forbidden them from implementing that program for the
last 9 years. All it did was say that the District employees can
purchase health insurance at their own expense for a domestic partner.
Who qualifies? Well, disabled people and their health care provider, two
widows or widowers living together, a grandmother and mother who are
jointly raising children, two relatives raising their children together,
as well as domestic partners. The amendment today would continue the ban
on the use of local funds to implement the Domestic Partnership Act. But
no Federal funds are involved. Why are we involved? Why should we be
against expanding health care coverage to widows, to children and to
unmarried couples? They are using their own money. If they do not use
their own money, many of them will have to be financed by the Medicaid
program. Most of which is paid for by Federal funds. It just does not
make sense, and I think it is mean-spirited as well. Throughout this
country, in Los Angeles; in Denver; in Baltimore; in Seattle; in St.
Louis; in Philadelphia; in Pittsburgh; in Austin, Texas; in Iowa City,
Idaho; Tucson, Arizona all those cities have the same domestic
partnership policy. Yet we are denying it to the District of Columbia to
be able to use their own funds and to enable people to purchase at their
own expense health insurance?"
The amendment failed by 194 to 226, thereby allowing DC to spend its
own money, but not federal money, to implement the law.
A member from Indiana successfully inserted a new social rider. It is
the opinion of DC’s Commission Human Rights—the organization that
enforces the DC Human Rights Act of 1977 and other laws on
nondiscrimination—that under DC human rights law, Boy Scout leaders who
are homosexual but do not promote their sexuality can remain in the Boy
Scouts. Rep. John Hostettler (R-IN), a name few in DC had ever heard of,
proposed and won a new rider that would intervene on the side of the Boy
Scouts by not allowing DC to enforce its law. Here is the language of that
rider:
"None of the funds contained in this Act may be used to issue,
administer, or enforce any order by the District of Columbia Commission
on Human Rights relating to docket numbers 93-030-(PA) and
93-031-(PA)."
Rep. John Hostettler (R-IN), in introducing his amendment, defended his
rider by saying the issue was not one of DC Home Rule, but one of Congress
using the exclusive legislation authority it has over DC to protect
"values Americans hold dear." He said:
"The most recent assault against the scouts occurred on June 20
when the District of Columbia Commission on Human Rights ruled that the
Boy Scouts of America had violated the D.C. Human Rights Act of 1977.
The Boy Scouts' crime? In keeping with their longstanding values and
standards, the Boy Scouts had expelled two homosexual scout masters in
Washington, D.C. Now, despite the constitutional protection of freedom
of association, and despite the Supreme Court ruling that reaffirmed the
Boy Scouts' right to determine its criteria for members and leaders, the
District of Columbia Human Rights Commission ordered the Boy Scouts to
reinstate the troop leaders and pay them $50,000 each. In addition, the
Commission ruled that the Scouts must also pay all attorneys' fees and
court costs. Mr. Chairman, this arrogant and intrusive ruling is just
the latest in a long string of cultural broadsides against the Boy
Scouts of America, a group dedicated to instilling selflessness,
character, responsibility, and love for God and country of our Nation's
boys and young men. … This is not an issue of home rule.
We do not have the authority, according to the Constitution, to govern
on issues regarding the city of Atlanta or the city of San Francisco or
the city of Tucson, Arizona. We do have constitutional authority over
all legislative matters whatsoever in regard to the District of
Columbia; and Members should stand up, recognize their constitutional
authority, and recognize that all groups are under assault here with
regard to the values that they hold dear."
Congresswoman Norton proposed an amendment to the Hostettler amendment
that would only restrict the use of Federal funds from being used to
enforce orders against the Boy Scouts by the DC Commission on Human
Rights. She explained that the Commission’s vote was well reasoned and
was currently in the courts, where the issue should be decided. She said:
"[T]his was not a knee-jerk vote by the District of Columbia
Human Rights Commission. They submitted a very well-reasoned, 74-page
decision which I think they can reasonably argue is very much consistent
with the Supreme Court decision on this very issue. The Supreme Court
says that gay men cannot interfere with the message of the Boy Scouts.
The District of Columbia found that the gay men here were not strong
activists of the kind that the Supreme Court recognized as interfering
with the message of the Boy Scouts. Let us suppose that the District of
Columbia is wrong. If the District is wrong, the Boy Scouts of America,
as I speak, are pursuing their remedy. They are pursuing it because that
decision was appealed on July 19. Therefore, they are now in the courts.
If we proceed, we are not only undermining the local courts of the
District of Columbia, which, by the way, are Federal courts, but we are
undermining the independence of the Federal judiciary as well, because
this decision is based on a decision of the Supreme Court of the United
States; and this matter will ultimately find its way there, if it has
been incorrectly decided by the District's Human Rights Commission. We
interfere with the independence of the judiciary when we, the Congress
of the United States, decide that a politically unpopular decision has
been made and, therefore, we will politically intervene into a court
decision. We do not want to do that. We do not want to go there,
especially not now." …
Nevertheless, Ms. Norton’s amendment failed by 173 to 243.
Colbert I. King, Deputy Editor of The Washington Post Editorial
Page, explained in his weekly column the history of how DC came to have
the current badly flawed Home Rule arrangement (September 29, 2001,
"Democracy for the District, Too"). He wrote:
…"Congress preaches democracy to the world. But it thumbs its
nose at decisions reached through an open and democratic process by our
elected mayor and council. … D.C. home rule is a misnomer:
self-government without the power of the purse. The current arrangement
is a degrading, 28-year-old surrender of true home rule that grew out of
a deal cut behind closed doors between the late William Natcher of
Kentucky, a powerful House Appropriations Committee baron, and the late
Detroit congressman and House District Committee chairman, Charles
Diggs. … To get home-rule skeptics behind the bill, Diggs had to
satisfy Natcher, … Natcher's condition for supporting home rule? The
bill had to retain congressional control over the D.C. budget and the
federal payment. Diggs bought it. … If the Senate had had its way in
1973, the District would have complete budget autonomy today. … But
there was no requirement or expectation that the city's elected leaders
would be at the beck and call of power-hungry congressional staffers who
live vicariously through their bosses, as is the case today. …
Unfortunately, the '73 Senate -- led by home rule stalwarts Tom
Eagleton (D-Mo.), the D.C. committee chairman, and ranking minority
member Charles McC. Mathias Jr. (R-Md.) -- was faced with a conference
committee filled with House managers locked into the Diggs-Natcher
scheme. Wanting a home rule bill for the District, the senators
reluctantly went along. I know: I was a senior Senate District committee
staff member at the time. It's long past time to end the Diggs-Natcher
death grip on the city's purse strings. The District is not a city on
its knees. … Congress should get out of the municipal government
business, shut down those redundant D.C. oversight panels, make the
staff get real jobs and put those federal tax dollars to some good use.
A representative democracy should not, through Congress, deny true
self-rule -- which is the power of the purse -- to its capital city. As
long as Congress reviews and appropriates the District's budget, what
passes for self-government in year 2001 is a sham. And home rule
supporters shouldn't fear saying so . . . even as they pay federal
taxes, bury attack victims and go off to war." (See full column at:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/opinion/columns/kingcolbert)
On September 30th, 2001, the Financial Management and
Assistance Authority ("Control Board") that had been put in
place in 1995 to oversee the DC government through a financial control
period came to an end. The DC Chief Financial Officer took responsibility
for many of the financial management functions held by the Control Board.
Members of the Stand Up for Democracy in DC Coalition celebrated outside
of city offices. The Common Denominator reported that local elected
officials cheered quietly (October 8, 2001), and quoted Ward 6
Councilwoman Sharon Ambrose (D) saying, "I feel like it’s
Independence Day here in the city. We have regained a small measure of our
independence back." (See http://www.thecommondenominator.com/100801_news2.html,)
That same day, Ward 2 Councilman Jack Evans (D) wrote an article in The
Washington Post’s Close to Home section, entitled, "The
District gets short shrift—again." He discussed the economic impact
of the terrorist attacks on DC, expressed confidence that DC could manage
its finances, particularly if it had a level playing field, and said,
"Every jurisdiction in the United States has taxing authority, and
every citizen has a voting representative in the national legislature—except
in the District. This situation is intolerable and must be fixed
immediately. Plenty of proposals are floating around. I say to Congress,
pick one and do it."
On October 2, 2001, Rep. Connie Morella (R-MD) and Del. Norton (D-DC)
introduced "The District of Columbia Fiscal Integrity Act of
2001" http://www.theorator.com/bills107/hr2995.html
to alter the federal-local relationship between Congress and DC.
Congresswoman Norton’s press release said, "The bill … would give
the District of Columbia autonomy over its own local, taxpayer-raised
budget beginning October 1, 2003. In addition, the bill supports the
District's own CFO independence law granting the District of Columbia's
chief financial officer a five-year term and allowing the Mayor to fire
the CFO only with the consent of two-thirds of the City Council." http://www.house.gov/norton/20011002.htm.
Round 4—The Subcommittee on Appropriations of the Senate: After the
House bill was received in the Senate on September 25, 2001, Senator Mary
Landrieu (D-LA), Chair of The Subcommittee on the District of Columbia of
the Senate Committee on Appropriations, worked to persuade her Republican
colleagues to cut the riders that had been cut by Rep. Joe Knollenberg
(R-MI) in the House Subcommittee, along with four additional ones, and to
keep the consensus budget that DC’s elected officials had originally
submitted. The Senate Appropriations Committee passed S. 1543, recommended
by the subcommittee, on October 11, 2001: http://www.senate.gov/~appropriations/releases/record.cfm?id=179193.
The bill included 408 million in Federal funds added to federal grants DC was
expected to receive for state, county, and city Federal grant programs.
The Committee reported that it had reduced the number of riders from 73
in 2001 to 33 this year. For example, it cut a rider that required that
budget reports containing a category of activities labeled with a
non-descriptive term, such as "other" or
"miscellaneous," must include a description of activities and a
detailed breakdown of costs for each activity. The Committee retained the
requirement that the DC government must submit the name, title, grade, and
salary of all DC government employees, but removed the requirement to also
submit past work and salary history.
The Committee added three new riders, requested by DC officials. It
modified a number of riders, including allowing DC to use locally-raised
revenues to lobby the Congress or State legislatures, to implement DC’s
domestic partnership law, to implement a needle exchange program, and to
provide assistance for petition drives or civil suits for DC voting rights
in Congress.
The Committee explained why it had retained a rider requiring the Mayor
to report to Congress on a quarterly basis regarding specific quality of
life issues in DC. In the Report, it wrote:
"The Congress is disappointed that the District was unable to
produce timely and complete reports throughout fiscal year 2001 and
retained the provision to emphasize the Committee’s interest in
understanding and evaluating improvements in District quality of life.
The District of Columbia has asserted improvements in these areas as
proof that the city is able to undertake increased local control and
autonomy. The Committee finds that a report on the quality of life in
the District is necessary to evaluate improvement."
Senator Landrieu, the daughter of a former mayor of New Orleans,
pointed out that while DC presents unique challenges, DC should have
broader authority over its own funds. She said:
"While in many ways the District of Columbia is like any other
city in the United States, it is at the same time unique in that it
serves as a "home" for the President, 535 members of Congress,
over 180,000 federal government employees, 1,290 federal buildings,
national monuments, and perhaps most importantly, the hopes, fears and
dreams of the American people." She said, "I am committed to
ensuring that District officials have the tools they need to continue to
serve D.C. and those who come to visit here. Given these improvements, I
believe it is appropriate to give the District broader authority over
its own funds in the same way other cities control their own funds.
While this is often a challenging role for the Federal government to
play, it is an important one."
Reporter Thomas C. Hall noted the efforts to reduce the number of
riders on DC’s budget, highlighted one anti-business rider that had been
killed even before it reached Congressional committee, and efforts to give
the District budgetary autonomy. He wrote in the Washington Business
Journal ("Committee chairs act to rein in riders on D.C.
budget," October 12, 2001):
"The District may lack full congressional representation, but
the city has no shortage of congressional input—or meddling—when it’s
budget time. …District officials have protested the practice for
years, and there are signs that irrelevant riders may be riding into the
sunset. For one thing, the three key committee chairs with D.C.
oversight powers are sympathetic to the plea of Del. Eleanor Holmes
Norton, D-D.C., for a budget process with ‘no strings attached.’ …
Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La., the new chairwoman of the Senate
Appropriations subcommittee on the District, also has politely asked her
colleagues to keep their hands off D.C. Home Rule budget items. … More
telling, perhaps, were riders that were upset before making it to a
committee vote, such as the one by Rep. Ernest Istook, R-Okla., that
sought to kill all District real estate deals that have taken more than
one year to complete. That would include just about everything
undertaken by the now-defunct Redevelopment Land Agency, such as the
stalled Tivoli Theater redevelopment project at Columbia Heights and
Republic Properties’ plans for an office building at the former
Government Printing Office site just west of Union Station. Norton and
Rep. Connie Morella, R-Md., chairwoman of the House Oversight Committee
on the District, have introduced a bill to end riders’ free ride.
..."
Significant behind-the-scenes partisan disagreement continued. The
Washington Post (October 22, 2001) hinted of the disagreement in an
editorial entitled "Councilman or Senator?," chastising the
Republican leadership for holding up the bill. It wrote,
"It would be a shame if, as rumored, the Senate Republican
leadership should attempt to block floor consideration of the District’s
fiscal year 2002 budget. The D.C. spending plan that cleared the Senate
Appropriations Committee two weeks ago is, in several respects, an
improvement over the House version. It deserves prompt passage by the
full Senate, not derailment by a small band of Republican senators
unhappy with how the District intends to use its own locally raised tax
dollars. Unfortunately, partisanship seems to be carrying the day. In
committee, only one Republican, Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania,
joined with all 15 Democrats to send the city‘s budget to the Senate
floor. The negative votes are hard to fathom." …
Many groups and individuals lobbied the Senate—in person, by phone,
and in writing—to move DC’s budget forward free of interference. For
example, Laura W. Murphy, Director, and Christopher E. Anders, Legislative
Counsel, of the American Civil Liberties Union, sent a "Dear
Senator" letter in which they strongly urged Senators to reject all
"anti-democracy" riders to DC’s bill and to allow DC’s
elected officials and residents to "decide for themselves the same
policy questions that each of the fifty states may debate and decide for
themselves." The level of behind-the-scenes activity is difficult to
track or report, however, there is little doubt that District officials
and citizens mobilized a significant amount of bipartisan activity in
support of local self-government.
Council Holds Hearings on Greater Judicial Autonomy—Meanwhile,
the DC Council held hearings on its "Sense of the Council Regarding
the Establishment of an Attorney General for the District of Columbia
Resolution of 2001, PR14-34" and "Local Selection of Judges
Charter Amendment Act of 2001, Bill 14-22." Copies of the legislation
are at http://www.dccouncil.washington.dc.us/
(under legislation -- search text) [and at http://www.dcwatch.com/archives/council14/14-34b.htm
and http://www.dcwatch.com/archives/council14/14-22.htm].
The full Council supports both bills to amend the DC Home Rule Charter.
Councilman David Catania (R), who sponsored the measure, said that having
an elected Attorney General would increase the chance that Home Rule will
succeed in the new period. Shadow Senator Paul Strauss suggested putting
the issue to voters in referendum. Mayor Anthony Williams (D) supports
both bills, but has some operational and financial concerns that could be
ironed out. The Superior Court judges' bill is especially difficult
because judges feel they would lose status and have a lower salary if the
Mayor, instead of the President, appoints them.
Round 5--The full Senate considered the DC Appropriations bill on
November 6 and 7, 2001, and asked the House for a conference to resolve
differences between the House and the Senate bills. The House agreed on
November 8.
At the beginning of the Senate floor debate, Senator Mary Landrieu
(D-LA) said the Appropriations committee had "worked diligently to
forge a partnership for progress between Congress and DC local elected
leaders," and to "construct a Federal budget that supplements
but not supplants the city’s efforts to fulfill its promise to enrich
the lives of the citizens in the District." She discouraged
amendments:
"Sometimes I think our District has been treated as a national
guinea pig instead of the Nation's Capital. I hope, as we bring the bill
to the floor this year, we can use new words to describe this
partnership--instead of ‘partisanship,’ ‘partnership’--words
such as ‘trust’ and ‘respect,’ respect for local decisionmaking,
which I think is so important in this relationship with the District.
… Amendments may be offered to this bill to restrict the District’s
ability to use it s own locally collected tax revenues to operate
specific programs hundreds of cities across this country operate. I hope
those amendments will not be offered, but if they are, we will debate
them with a limited time and move on so we can get this important bill
passed and signed by the President. In many parts of the country, some
of these issues are controversial. Throughout the entire country, the
issue of the direction of local funds is something that is universally,
I believe, supported."
Senator Mike DeWine (R-OH), ranking member of the committee and former
lieutenant governor of Ohio, continued the discussion by highlighting
elements of the bill, including $16 million in funds "to provide
security protection for those living and working in the District of
Columbia." Senator DeWine said:
"The September 11 Pentagon tragedy and the tragedy in New York
and Pennsylvania clearly demonstrated the need in every district in this
country to have an integrated emergency management system in place. It
certainly demonstrated that need in the District of Columbia. This
funding will pay for a coordinated emergency plan for the District of
Columbia in national security situations including, of course, terrorist
threats, protests, natural disasters, or other unanticipated events. As
a condition of receiving these funds, in this bill, we are requiring
that the District develop and submit to Congress a comprehensive plan to
improve security measures and procedures in the District of
Columbia."
Senator George Allen (R-VA) proposed an amendment to prohibit the use
of both federal and local funds to carry out needle exchange programs in
the District of Columbia. Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL) argued the merits
of defeating the amendment:
"[T]he proposal we have before us today is one of the worst. It
is a proposal where we say to the District of Columbia: You cannot use
your money, your taxpayers' dollars, on a public health program that you
endorsed to deal with a major public health crisis in the District of
Columbia. … First, those opposing the Allen amendment: The American
Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American
Foundation for AIDS Research, the American Nurses Association, the
American Pharmaceutical Association, the American Public Health
Association. The list goes on and on and on. Every major credible public
health organization that has been asked to comment on needle exchange
programs has concluded they are an effective way to fight drug usage and
the spread of HIV and AIDS. Let me draw the attention of the Senate
to this chart. … all of these 31 States have decided this is a good
way to fight drug usage and HIV/AIDS. Are we passing a law banning
States around the country such as Maryland from having a needle exchange
program, or Illinois? No. Only the District of Columbia, where Senators
and Congressmen get to play mayor for a day. That is unfair. …
If this is such a scourge on America, as the Senator from Virginia
suggests, why hasn't he offered an amendment to ban these programs
nationwide? Because, frankly, it is not Congress's business to do so.
Secondly, it is just plain wrong from a public health point of view. We
know in these States that these programs bring people who are currently
addicted into the presence of those who will give them the clean and
safe needles, but also much more. … Ninety-five percent of
the programs refer clients to substance abuse treatment and counseling
programs. … Why would we walk away from that? Why in the Nation's
Capital would we walk away from it, where the HIV and AIDS infection is
the worst in America?"
After significant discussion, the amendment was tabled. The issue would
be resolved in conference committee. Del. Norton (D-DC) issued a press
statement in which she said, "Until now, it seemed not to matter that
the needle exchange ban sacrificed human beings in the District. The
Senate’s vote today will put us in an excellent position in conference
with the House. I will fight with all I’ve got to preserve the Senate
position." See http://www.house.gov/norton/20011108.htm.
Round 6—The Conference Committee: The appointed House and
Senate conferees were:
House of Representatives: Reps. Randy "Duke" Cunningham
(R-CA), John Doolittle (R-CA), Chaka Fattah (D-PA), Ernest Istook, Jr.
(R-OK), Joseph Knollenberg (R-MI), Alan Mollohan (D-WV), David Obey
(D-WI), John Olver (D-MA), John Sweeney (R-NY), David Vitter (R-LA), C.W.
"Bill" Young (R-FL)
Senate: Senators Kay Bailey Hutchison (R-TX), Mike DeWine (R-OH),
Richard Durbin (D-IL), Daniel Inouye (D-HI), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Jack
Reed (D-RI), Ted Stevens (R-AK)
The Conferees reinserted language that restricted all funds, both
federal and local, for use in implementing DC’s drug treatment and AIDS
prevention program, written as follows:
"(a) None of the funds contained in this Act may be used for any
program of distributing sterile needles or syringes for the hypodermic
injection of any illegal drug. (b) Any individual or entity who receives
any funds contained in this Act and who carries out any program
described in subsection (a) shall account for all funds used for such
program separately from any funds contained in this Act."
The Conferees also reinserted what many in DC view as repugnant
language that restricted funds for use in support of DC voting rights in
Congress or statehood, as follows:
"Sec. 107. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), no part of
this appropriation shall be used for publicity or propaganda purposes or
implementation of any policy including boycott designed to support or
defeat legislation pending before Congress or any State legislature.
(b) The District of Columbia may use local funds provided in this
Act to carry out lobbying activities on any matter other than—
(1) the promotion or support of any boycott; or
(2) statehood for the District of Columbia or voting
representation in Congress for the District of Columbia.
(c) Nothing in this section may be construed to prohibit any
elected official from advocating with respect to any of the issues
referred to in subsection (b)."
The following two riders, which were carried over from 2001, relate to
the new rider:
Sec. 124. None of the funds contained in this Act may be used by the
District of Columbia Corporation Counsel or any other officer or entity
of the District government to provide assistance for any petition drive
or civil action which seeks to require Congress to provide for voting
representation in Congress for the District of Columbia."
Sec. 132. Nothing in this Act bars the District of Columbia
Corporation Counsel from reviewing or commenting on briefs in private
lawsuits, or from consulting with officials of the District government
regarding such lawsuits."
Conferees also cut a rider that had been inserted by the Senate at the
request of the Mayor that would have made all Antitrust, Antifraud, and
Consumer Protection funds established under DC Law available to the Office
of the Corporation Counsel. Conferees also cut a cap on attorneys’ fees
for lawsuits filed under the Individuals With Disabilities Act, inserted
in previous years to limit skyrocketing costs to the DC Public School
system.
On December 5, 2001, conferees filed the Conference Report. The
Appropriations bill respected the wishes of local elected officials by
keeping DC’s budget request intact with $6.048 billion in local DC funds
(not including capital.
During the Appropriations process, Congress added $408 million for
specific uses (see Table 1, p. 28), as well as 40 riders—restrictions,
mandates, and other items to micromanage local elected officials and DC
residents.
Round 7—The House of Representatives: On December 6, the House
considered and approved the Conference Report without further changes.
During the floor debate on December 6, Members made floor statements
congratulating one another and the committee staff for a job well done.
Del. Norton thanked Members for their support on some items, chastised
them on others, and offered a solution to end this yearly process:
"For those here for the first time, I always warn them they may
feel like they are going through an out-of-body experience. Many have
come out of State legislature and now somebody is telling them to look
at the budget of what amounts to a State, somebody else’s budget; to
ask them to vote on a local budget. It is beneath them, it really is. I
am going to ask Members to vote for it and try to understand that that
is what the Congress makes us do. But I want to tell this House that it
is almost Christmas, and the District of Columbia has not been able to
spend a single cent of its budget because this House has just gotten
around to spending its money. I wonder how many would be left standing
if their State, and this is the functional equivalent of a State, could
not spend any of its money for 3 months into the budget year? I ask
Members to put themselves, for a change, into the position of the city I
represent. … I have a remedy for this … It is a budget autonomy bill
that would still let this House put all their attachments on it, do all
the things to the District that they will not let anybody do to their
districts; but at least they would say when the District passes its
budget… that they can now go ahead and spend their own money."
…
Rep. Tom Davis (R-VA) rose in support of the bill. He blamed the Senate
for the budget delay, explained the background of why the federal payment
was ended in 1997, and supported greater autonomy for DC. Here is some of
what he said:
"[I]t is said that the city has had to wait until December to
get their appropriations. It should not have to work that way. This body
passed the bill September 25. We were ready to go to conference the next
day. It was the Senate, the other body, that held up this legislation.
… The gentlewoman from the District of Columbia’s object here is a
noble cause, and we ought to look very closely at how we can do that.
Every other city in America, when they pass their budget it goes right
into operation, and if the Congress has a problem with it we can step
forward and say we have a problem with it. But under this protracted
procedure, we end up ironically hurting a city that has a limited tax
base as it is. This legislation is pretty good. … I think, by and
large, this goes further in respecting District of Columbia home rule
than many other appropriations bills that have come before this body. If
we want democracy in this city to succeed, however, we should not
continue to second-guess the mayor and the council. I disagree with some
of the things that the council has done, as I do with things in my home
city council and county board of supervisors do. But if we want
democracy to flourish, we have to give them the responsibility and that
means not constantly looking over their back."…
Spencer S. Hsu of The Washington Post reported on December 5,
"Congressional leaders approved the District’s first post-control
board budget last night, rolling back federal bans on disputed local
initiatives such as domestic partner benefits and honoring every city
funding request." Hsu quoted Mayoral spokesperson Tony Bullock,
"The message Congress is sending is they believe that this city is
capable of governing itself." Hsu quoted DC’s Shadow Senator Paul
Strauss, "There is more money and more freedom—not enough of
either, but more." Hsu noted, "The home rule advances come as
warnings of future deficits gather."
Mayor Anthony A. Williams announced on December 9, 2001, that the Board
of Directors of the National League of Cities (NLC) had approved a
resolution in support of DC voting rights as a permanent part of its
legislative agenda. http://www.washingtondc.gov/mayor/news/release.asp?id=279&mon=200112.
The organization’s full membership is expected to give final approval to
the measure.
Round 8—President George Bush’s signature. The President
signed Public Law 107-96 on December 21, 2001. http://thomas.loc.gov/home/approp/appover.html.
Observations and Conclusion
In 1783, the Continental Congress pledged that the future seat of
government would have self-government. DC citizens have worked tirelessly
since 1800 to retain their birthright, won in the Revolution. From the
time he became president in 1964, Lyndon Johnson worked tirelessly for
self-government for DC. According to Joseph A. Califano, Jr. in The
Triumph and Tragedy of Lyndon Johnson, "[S]tarting with
[President] Harry Truman, three presidents had routinely asked Congress
for home rule for the District and, on five occasions, the Senate voted to
grant it while the House failed to act."
Mr. Califano reported that President Johnson had an almost religious
faith in the right to vote, and he wanted to achieve DC self-government as
a personal "birthday present." He was a Texan who had lived in
DC for over 30 years and understood the issues and problems with the
unfair arrangement. He said, "[N]ot only as President, but as a
resident, I feel very deeply the obligation to help liberate the people of
this city—to extend to them the same democracy which is part of the life
of the citizens of my other home in Texas." Many honorable members of
Congress have spoken about honoring the basic principle of representative
government, but achieving a majority is difficult unless there are at
least a few leaders who are unflinching in their resolve.
President Johnson set the stage for local self-government, and a
limited Home Rule bill was passed in 1973. As Colbert King explained, a
compromise in Congress removed budgetary autonomy. Julius Hobson, a
founder of the DC statehood movement, called the arrangement "Home
Fool" and warned against such incremental compromises. Today, nearly
sixty percent of DC residents want DC to become an independent state. But
their wishes seem as much a distant dream now as when the idea was first
discussed by Sam Smith in 1969.
The two hundred year history of the relationship between DC government
and the federal government shows that as long as Congress has exclusive
legislative authority as currently written, DC will not have true
self-government. Only by amending the Constitution to grant DC the same
rights as citizens who live in states, or by making DC a state or merging
DC into a state, will DC achieve political equality.
But until DC wins her ultimate goal of full democracy and equal rights,
her elected officials and citizens must do what they have always done—struggle
to make their interests known and to prevent unnecessary intervention and
micromanagement. In this year’s Appropriations process, Congress
eventually approved DC’s proposed budget without change. However, it
added forty restrictive riders.
On an unfair playing field, it is difficult to reduce taxes, improve
services, and make social progress on the terrible poverty issues that DC
faces. DC’s leaders sometimes hesitate to speak out, fearing criticism
or retaliation by powerful members of Congress. Although most District
elected officials took a low profile and did not criticize the process,
they did write letters in support of their budget and some spoke out.
Councilman Jack Evans (D) and Councilman David Catania (R) took higher
profile positions. During the process, the Council held hearings on bills
related to increasing DC’s judicial autonomy, and Congresswoman Norton
introduced a budgetary autonomy bill—both signaling DC’s desire for a
better balance between rights and responsibilities.
In this Appropriations process, Congress was more respectful toward DC
than it has been in many years. Citizens should honor Congress for the
goodwill it exhibited. But, at best, DC could consider less than 6 percent
of its budget compensation for the restrictions and exemptions Congress
imposes, and the demands it makes for services. How can this not increase
local taxes?
Most DC business leaders and citizens did not get involved. The civic
and activist community took some interest in the issue. For example, The
Stand Up for Democracy in DC Coalition worked to draw attention to the
budgeting process by launching a "Free DC Budget Campaign" and
lobbying Congress with other groups.
There was no formalized working group or task force that cut across the
issue areas and groups that could have coordinated and distributed timely
information more effectively through various networks. Most efforts to
influence Congressional decision-makers were behind-the-scenes lobbying
that were issue oriented or targeted to remove or modify particular
riders. For example, the domestic partnership issue mobilized many groups
and individuals, both local and national. Some residents, both Republican
and Democrat, have worked tirelessly to remove that restriction since
1993.
Some wonder about the effectiveness of speaking out if there is little
if any media coverage of the nature of the problem and possible solutions.
The national media do not consider the DC Appropriations process a
national issue, and do not cover the story. National events of greater
importance reduce the possibility of national coverage even further. Most
local media coverage focused mainly on controversial riders, but did not
comment on the deeply flawed process. There were exceptions. Colbert I.
King, Deputy Editorial Page Editor of The Washington Post was the
most vocal print media spokesperson. He drew attention to the flawed
oversight process and called for the abolition of the Congressional
oversight committees. Political commentator Mark Plotkin drew attention to
the issue on WAMU’s weekly Public Interest radio program, The D.C.
Politics Hour with Mark Plotkin. Reporter Thomas C. Hall broke a story
about a quashed rider in the Washington Business Journal. NBC
reporter Tom Sherwood covered the issue in his weekly Notebook published
in The Northwest Current. And some residents—including myself—discussed
the budget process in themail@dcwatch,
an E-mail discussion forum on local DC politics.
What is the solution? Congress should honor the founders and the city
of George Washington and treat DC fairly. Riders restricting DC from
spending its own funds in support of equal voting rights in Congress or
for statehood are particularly repugnant. The Senate and House conferees
directed the Congressional Research Service (CRS) to "analyze the
differences and similarities in municipal, state, and national government,
including funding, management, oversight, and the rights of citizens, in
the District of Columbia and ten other comparable national capitals."
The report is due March 31, 2002. This directive indicates a willingness
to examine the facts more carefully.
One way to proceed is to pass Del. Norton’s D.C. Fiscal Integrity Act
of 2001, H. R. 2995: http://www.theorator.com/bills107/hr2995.html or http://thomas.loc.gov/,
which will grant DC a degree of budgetary autonomy. In addition, Congress
should:
- Abolish the DC Congressional oversight committees.
- Pass legislation to grant DC judicial and legislative autonomy.
- Allow DC’s elected leaders to negotiate reciprocal taxing
agreements with Maryland and Virginia, or to develop a new way to
accomplish the same goal.
- Offer a payment in lieu of real estate taxes (PILOT).
- Develop a fair plan to compensate DC for the services the federal
government uses, based on a fair market value.
These measures would put DC on a more level economic playing field and
would put authority over local decisions on which there is no federal
interest where they belong—with local elected officials.
One day, DC residents intend to win full self-government and full
voting representation in Congress. This is their long-term goal. At
minimum, Congress should respect this goal and remove every malicious
rider intended to inhibit DC from trying to achieve what most Americans
consider their God given birthright. These anti-democracy riders are
unbecoming from a Congress that purports to lead the world in the movement
for greater levels of representative democracy!
Back to top of page
Table 1
Federal Contribution Added During FY 2002 Appropriations Process (6% of
total)
1. Emergency Planning and Security Costs - $16 million (of which $3.4
million is to reimburse DC for World Bank/IMF security expenses; DC must
work with federal and regional security agencies to develop an integrated
operations plan by Jan. 2, 2002, and must submit a detailed report of
expenditures. The CFO must also provide quarterly reports to oversight
committees beginning April 2, 2002)
2. Fire and Emergency Medical Services Department - $500,000 for
dry-docking the Fire Boat)
3. Chief Medical Examiner - $585,000 (for reduction in backlog of
autopsies, case reports and for the purchase of toxicology and histology
equipment)
4. Tuition support for DC residents who attend out-of-District public
institutions of higher education - $17 million (not more than 7% may be
used for administration)
5. DC Courts - $112 million for salaries and expenses ($8 million for
Court of Appeals; $66 million for DC Superior Court; $32 million for the
DC Court System; $6.5 million for capital improvements to DC courthouse
facilities)
6. DC Corrections Trustee Operations - $30.2 million (for the
administration and operation of correctional facilities and for
administrative operating costs)
7. DC Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency - $147.3 million
($94.1 million for Community Supervision and Sex Offender Registration;
$20.8 million transferred to the Public Defender Service; $32.3 million
for Pretrial Service Agency; the Director may acquire and renovate as
necessary Building Number 17 at 1900 Mass. Ave. SE for offenders and
defendants)
8. Defender Services in DC Courts - $34.3 million (available until
expended)
9. Court Appointed Special Advocates - $250,000 (to expand their work
in the Family Court of the DC Superior Court)
10. Family Court - $24 million ($23.3 million for Superior Court and
$700,000 for the Mayor of which $200,000 is for completion of a plan for
integrating the computer systems of the DC government with the Family
Court of the Superior Court; Mayor must submit a plan to the President and
the Congress within 6 months)
11. City Administrator - $300,000 (for the Criminal Justice
Coordinating Council)
12. DC Public Schools - $2.5 million (of which $2 million is to
implement the Voyager Expanded Learning literacy program in kindergarten
and first grade classrooms, $250,000 for Failure Free Reading literacy
program for non-readers and special education students, $250,000 for
Failure Free Reading literacy program for non-readers and special
education students; $200,000 for Lightspan, Inc. to implement the
eduTest.com program)
13. Thurgood Marshall Academy Charter School - $1 million to acquire
and renovate an educational facility in Anacostia
14. Incentives for Adoption of Children - $5 million (funds from the FY
2000 budget to remain available through September 2003 to carry out
provision of title 38 of FY2001 Budget Support Act of 2000 as amended
except for section 3808, provided that $1 million be used for establishing
a scholarship fund for DC children of adoptive families and DC children
without parents due to the September 11 terrorist attack to be used for
post high school education and training)St. Coletta of Greater Washington
Expansion Project - $2 million (for costs to establish a day program and
comprehensive case management services for mentally retarded and
multiple-handicapped adolescents and adults in DC, including property
acquisition and construction)
15. Children’s National Medical Center - $5.5 million (of which $5
million is for capital and equipment improvements, and $500,000 for the
network of satellite pediatric health clinics for children and families in
underserved neighborhoods and communities of DC)
16. Southeastern University - $500,000 (for public/private partnership
with McKinley Technical High School campus)
17. Capitol City Career Development and Job Straining Partnership -
$500,000
18. Capitol Education Fund - $500,000
19. Metropolitan Kappa Youth Development Foundation - $450,000
20. Youth Life Foundation - $250,000 (for technical assistance,
operational expenses, and establishment of a National Training Institute)
21. Faith and Politics Institute - $50,000 (for grass roots-based
racial sensitivity programs in DC)
22. George Washington University Center for Excellence in Municipal
Management - $250,000 (to increase enrollment of managers from DC
government)
23. DC and Federal Law Enforcement Mobile Wireless Interoperability
Project - $1.4 million ($400,000 for the Chief Technology Officer,
$333,334 for the U.S. Secret Service, $333,333 for the U.S. Capitol
Police, and $333,333 for the U.S. Park Police, provided each participates
and files a joint report on resource allocation and each agencies’
resource commitment for 2003 with Congressional appropriations committees
by March 30, 2002)
24. Chief Financial Officer - $8.3 million ($2.25 million for a pilot
project to demonstrate the "Active Cap" river cleanup technology
on the Anacostia River; $500,000 for Washington DC Sports and
Entertainment Commission in coordination with U.S. Soccer Foundation for
environmental and infrastructure costs at Kenilworth Park in the creation
of Kenilworth Regional Sports Complex; $600,000 for One Economy
Corporation to increase Internet access to low-income homes; $500,000 to
Langston Project for the 21st Century to improve physical
education and training facilities; $1 million to the Green Door Program
for capital improvements at a community mental health clinic; $500,000 to
the Historical Society of Washington for capital improvements to the new
City Museum; $200,000 for Teach for America DC for teacher development;
$350,000 for DC Safe Kids Coalition to promote child passenger safety
through Child Occupant Protection Initiative; $50,000 for renovations at
Eastern Market; $1 million for Excel Institute Adult Education Program to
construct and acquire construction services by the GSA on a reimbursable
basis; $300,000 to Woodlawn Cemetery for restoration; $250,000 to the Real
World Schools concerning 21st Century reform models for
secondary education and the use of technology to support learning in DC;
$300,000 for a mentoring program and for hotline services; $250,000 to a
youth development program with a character building curriculum; and
$250,000 to a basic values training program)
25. Food and Friends - $2 million (for their Capital Campaign)
Back to top of page
Table 2:
Summary Of Riders Added or Retained By Congress on DC’s FY 2002 Budget
The FY 2002 budget shows 40 riders (General Provisions Sections), some
of which were first attached to DC’s budget in 1973, as the District was
transiting to elected officials for the first time after a century of rule
by unelected commissioners appointed by the President. This is a reduction
of about 30 riders that had been part of the FY 2001 budget (see Table 3).
Following is a summary of the riders added to DC’s FY 2002 budget. For
exact language and more detail, see the Appropriations bill. I have
classified the riders into the following categories:
A. Legal overrides and social restrictions ("social
riders")
B. Budgetary controls and operating and reporting requirements
C. Contracting restrictions
D. DC government and employee restrictions and powers
E. Educational and school restrictions
F. Riders Requested of Congress by the DC Government
LEGAL OVERRIDES AND SOCIAL RESTRICTIONS ("SOCIAL RIDERS")
1. No funds may be used by the DC Commission on Human Rights to
defend its position regarding the right of non-activist gays to serve in
the Boy Scouts. No funds [federal or local] can be used to issue,
administer, or enforce any order by the DC Commission on Human Rights
relating to docket number 93-030-(pa) and 93-031-(pa). (Sec. 139)
2. No federal funds can be used for Congressional offices established
under DC Statehood Constitutional Convention Initiatives of 1979 (DC’s
"shadow" Senators and Representative). (Sec. 116)
3. No federal funds may be used for publicity or propaganda purposes
or implementation of any policy including boycott designed to support or
defeat legislation pending before Congress or any State legislature. DC
funds may be used to carry out lobbying activities on any matter other
than the promotion or support of any boycott, DC statehood, or DC voting
representation in Congress. However, nothing in this section may be
construed to prohibit any elected official from advocating boycotts,
statehood, or voting rights (Sec. 107)
4. No funds may be used to by DC Corporation Counsel or any other
officer or entity of DC government to provide assistance for any
petition drive or civil action which seeks to require Congress to
provide for DC voting representation in Congress. (Sec. 124)
5. DC Corporation Counsel is allowed to review and comment on briefs
in private lawsuits and may consult with DC government officials about
such lawsuits. (Sec. 132)
6. No funds may be used for partisan activities. No funds may be used
for educational institutions, compensation of personnel, or for other
educational purposes to permit, encourage, facilitate, or further
partisan political activities. This does not prohibit the use of school
buildings for community or partisan political groups during non-school
hours. (Sec. 105)
7. No funds may be used for abortions, except where the life of the
mother would be endangered or in cases of rape or incest. (Sec. 117)
8. No federal funds may be used to implement DC’s domestic
partnership law. No federal funds may be used to implement Health Care
Benefits Expansion Act of 1992 for cohabiting couples, or to implement
or enforce any system of registration of unmarried, cohabiting couples,
including but not limited to registration for the purpose of extending
employment, health, or governmental benefits to such couples on the same
basis that such benefits are extended to legally married couples. (Sec.
118)
9. No funds may be used for a sterile needle or syringe exchange
program to reduce the spread of AIDS (and recruit candidates for drug
treatment). No funds may be used for preventing AIDS using the sterile
needle or syringe distribution program amongst drug abusers. Any
individual or entity who receives any funds contained in this Act and
who carries out any program described above must account for the portion
supported by DC funds separately from other funds. (Sec. 125)
10. No funds may be used to implement Initiative 59, approved by DC
voters, to allow medical doctors to prescribe marijuana as medical
treatment to patients. No funds may be used to enact or carry out any
program to legalize or reduce penalties associated with possession, use,
or distribution of any Schedule I substance for the purpose of medical
treatment. The Legalization of Marijuana for Medical Treatment
Initiative of 1998, also know as Initiative 59, approved by the electors
of DC on November 3, 1998, shall not take effect. (Sec. 127)
11. A conscience clause must be included in any legislation the
Council and Mayor might pass requiring contraceptive coverage by health
insurance plans. The Council and Mayor may require health insurance
plans to cover contraceptives, but it is the intent of Congress that any
legislation enacted should include a "conscience clause" with
exceptions for religious beliefs and moral convictions. (Sec. 128)
12. The federal government will grant MPDC $100,000 for enforcement
purposes when it passes a law banning possession of tobacco by those
less than 18 years old. The federal government will grant the DC police
department $100,000 effective when DC passes a law banning the
possession of tobacco products by minors. Those delivering cigarettes
for their work and those participating in law enforcement operations are
exempted. Penalties include community service or a tobacco cessation
program, up to a $50 fine for first violation, up to a $100 fine for the
next violation, and suspension of driving privileges for 90 consecutive
days for a third and subsequent violation. (Sec. 130)
BUDGETARY CONTROLS AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
13. Whenever an amount is specified for particular purposes, that
will be the maximum amount that can be spent that that purpose, rather
than an amount set apart exclusively therefore. (Sec. 101)
14. No funds provided to DC or federal agencies that remain available
for obligation or expenditure in FY 2002, or provided from any accounts
in the U.S. Treasury from the collection of fees available to agencies
funded by this Act, shall be available for obligation or expenditure for
an agency through a reprogramming of funds which: (1) creates new
programs; (2) eliminates a program, project, or responsibility center;
(3) establishes or changes allocations specifically denied, limited or
increased by Congress in this Act; (4) increases funds or personnel by
any means for any program, project, or responsibility center for which
funds have been denied or restricted; (5) reestablishes through
reprogramming any program or project previously deferred through
reprogramming; (6) augments existing programs, projects, or
responsibility centers through a reprogramming of funds in excel of $1
million, or 10 percent whichever is less; or (7) increases by 20 percent
or more personnel assigned to a specific program, project or
responsibility center; unless the Committees on Appropriations of both
the Senate and the House are notified in writing 30 days in advance.
None of DC funds may be available for obligation or expenditure for an
agency through a transfer of local funds from one appropriation heading
to another unless the Committees on Appropriations of the Senate and
House are notified in writing 30 days in advance, except that in no
event my the amount of any funds transferred exceed four percent of the
local funds in this Act (Sec. 109)
15. Funds may be applied only to the objects for which the
appropriations were made except as otherwise provided by law. (Sec. 110)
16. No money in DC’s budget bill shall remain available for
obligation beyond the current fiscal year, unless expressly stated.
(Sec. 104)
17. The Mayor must submit to Congress an annual plan with capital
outlay borrowings and spending compared to projections. At the start of
the fiscal year, the Mayor must develop an annual plan, by quarter and
by project, for capital outlay borrowings, and the Mayor must report to
the Council and Congress within a reasonable time after each quarter on
the actual borrowings and spending compared to projections. (Sec. 108)
18. The Mayor must submit to the Council new FY 2002 revenue
estimates no later than 30 days after the end of the first quarter of FY
2002 for use in the FY 2003 budget request. Officially revised estimates
at midyear must be used for the midyear report. (Sec. 112)
19. DC must submit a realigned budget to Congress within one month
after Congress revises DC’s budget. Within 30 days after the budget
bill is passed, DC’s Chief Financial Officer must submit a revised
appropriated funds operating budget for all agencies of DC government to
Congressional committees, the Mayor, and the Council. (Sec. 135)
20. Public Law 104-8 (DC Financial Responsibility and Management
Assistant Act of 1995) is amended. The DC budget must have a budget
reserve in 2002 ($120,000,000) and 2003 ($70,000,000). Money will remain
available until expended. In addition to other reserves required under
section 450A of the DC Home Rule Art, for both 2004 and 2005, the DC
budget will contain a cumulate cash reserve of $50,000,000. Money in the
reserve can be expended under the following conditions: (1) the CFO must
certify that the money is available, (2) the amounts must be obligated
or spent in accordance with laws enacted by the Council in support of
each expenditure, (3) the amounts may not be obligated or spent to fund
DC government agencies under court ordered receivership, (4) the mayor
must notify the Congressional appropriations committees in writing 30
days in advance. Any amount expended in one year must be replenished the
following year. Also, a contingency cash reserve fund (separate from
other accounts in the General Fund) into which the Mayor must deposit no
later than October 1 of each fiscal year the amount required to maintain
a balance of at least 3 percent of the total budget appropriated for
operating expenditures from local funds. (Sec. 133)
21. The Mayor must submit to Congressional oversight committees
quarterly reports addressing the following: crime (including the
homicide rate, implementation of community policing, the number of
police officers on local beats, and the closing down of open-air drug
markets); access to drug abuse treatment (including the number of
treatment slots, the number of people served, the number on waiting
lists, the effectiveness of treatment programs); management of parolees
and pre-trial violent offenders (including the number of halfway house
escapes and steps taken to improve monitoring and supervision of halfway
house residents to reduce the number of escapes); education (including
access to special education services and student achievement to be
provided in consultation with the DC Public Schools); improvement in
basic District services (including rat control and abatement);
application for and management of federal grants (including the number
and type of grants for which the District was eligible but failed to
apply and the number and type of grants awarded to the District but
which the District failed to spend the amounts received); and indicators
of child well-being. (Sec. 131)
22. There are appropriated from the applicable DC funds the needed
amount to make refunds and for the payment of legal settlements or
judgments that have been entered against the DC government. Nothing
contained in this section shall be construed as modifying or affecting
the provisions of section 11(c)(3) of title XII of the DC Income and
Franchise Tax Act of 1947. (Sec. 103)
23. In the event a sequestration order is issued pursuant to the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, after the
amounts appropriated to DC for the fiscal year involved have been paid
to DC, the Mayor shall pay to the Secretary of the Treasury within 15
days after receipt of a request from the Secretary the amount
sequestered by the order. The sequestration percentage shall be applied
proportionately to each of the Federal appropriation amounts in this Act
that are not specifically exempted from sequestration by such Act.
Definitions are clarified related to the Balanced Budget and Emergency
Deficit Control Act of 1985. (Sec. 114)
24. DC Superior Court and the DC Court of Appeals must pay interest
for delayed payments. If these bodies do not make a payment [as
described in this Sec.] prior to the expiration of the 45-day period
which begins on the date the Court receives a completed voucher for a
claim for the payment, interest shall be assessed against the amount of
the payment which would otherwise be made to take into account the
period which begins on the day after the expiration of such 45-day
period and which ends on the day the Court makes the payment. Standards
for submission for completed vouchers are established. (Sec. 129)
CONTRACTING RESTRICTIONS
25. No sole source contracts may be renewed or extended without
competitive biding, unless not feasible or practical, as determined by
the CFO. (Sec. 113)
26. DC officers and employees, excluding the CTO, the CFO, and MPD,
must do an analysis for any contract over $2,500. No officer or DC
government employee may enter into an agreement in excess of $2,500 for
the procurement of goods or services on behalf of any DC government
entity until they have done an analysis to determine the difference in
cost and time between their method compared to the cost of procuring the
goods and services under the federal supply system. (Sec. 120(c).)
DC GOVERNMENT AND EMPLOYEE RESTRICTIONS AND POWERS
27. All DC government officers (including independent agencies) must
certify with Mayor and CFO that they know what their job is, including
restrictions, and list the required reports and due dates quarterly. DC
may not pay the salary of any chief financial officer of any DC
government office unless he has filed a certification with the Mayor and
CFO that he understands his duties and restrictions. The CFO must
prepare for the Congressional appropriations committees by the 10th
day after the end of each quarter a summary list of required reports,
due dates, and date submitted to the Committees. (Sec. 126)
28. DC government employees whose information is not listed for
Congressional inspection may not be paid. No funds may be used to pay
any DC government employee whose name, title, grade, and salary, are not
available for inspection by Congressional oversight committees (the
House and Senate Committees on Appropriations, the Subcommittee on the
District of Columbia of the House Committee on Government Reform, the
Subcommittee on Oversight of Government, Management, Restructuring and
the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs), and the Council of the
District of Columbia, or their duly authorized representative. (Sec.
106)
29. The Inspector Generals’ office controls funding for independent
audits. No funds may be used for an annual audit of DC financial
statements unless they are conducted or contracted by the Inspector
General, in consultation with the CFO, following the DC Procurement
Practices Act of 1985. The audit must include a basic financial
statement and a comparison of projected versus audited actual yearend
results. (Sec. 123)
30. The Mayor or the chair of the Council must authorize travel
expenses and dues for organizations related to official DC government
business. (Sec. 102)
31. Official DC government vehicles may only be used during working
hours. This does not include the Mayor or the Chair of the Council.
Official business does not include travel to and from their home and
workplace—unless a police officer who resides in DC or is designated
by the Chief of Police; at the discretion of the Fire Chief or an
officer or employee of the DC Fire Department and Emergency Medical
Services who lives in DC and is on 24-hour call. The CFO must submit to
Congress an inventory of all vehicles owned, leased, or operated by the
DC government, information about the state of each vehicle, the mileage
reading, annual operating and maintenance costs, and the names and
addresses of the individuals who have exemptions to use vehicles. (Sec.
120)
32. DC government entities, including independent agencies, may
accept gifts or donations to carry out authorized functions or duties or
if the Mayor gives approval. The Council, the DC courts, and the DC
Board of Education, do not need approval from the Mayor. Detailed and
accurate public records must be kept and available for audit and public
inspection. (Sec. 115)
33. The Mayor, in consultation with the CFO, may accept, obligate,
and expend Federal, private, and other grants received by the DC
government that are not reflected in the amounts appropriated in this
Act. No funds may be accepted, obligated, or spent until the CFO submits
to the Council a report setting forth detailed information regarding
such grant, and the Council has reviewed and approved within 15 calendar
days after receipt of the report submitted. No money may be obligated or
spent in anticipation of approval. The CFO must prepare and submit to
the Council and the Congressional appropriations committees (no later
than 15 days after the end of the quarter covered) a quarterly report
setting forth detailed information regarding all Federal, private, and
other grants subject to this section. (Sec. 119)
34. DC must comply with the Buy American Act. All entities receiving
funds from DC’s budget appropriation must comply with the Buy American
Act. (Sec. 122)
35. The provision of DC Government Comprehensive Merit Personnel Act
of 1978 applies for compensating DC employees. For pay purposes, DC
government employees are not subject to certain federal civil service
laws (Title 5, US Code). Not later than 45 days after the end of each
fiscal year, the CTO shall prepare and submit to the Council and to the
Congressional appropriations committees a repot describing all
agreements entered into by the CTO under this section. The authority
which the CFO exercised with respect to personnel, procurement, and the
preparation of fiscal impact statements during a control period shall
remain in effect through July 1, 2002. (Sec. 111)
36. No funds may be used for an Integrated Product Team until
reorganization plans for the IPT and a Capital Construction Services
Administration have been approved, or deemed approved, by the Council.
This does not apply to funds appropriated for the Office of Contracting
and Procurement. (Sec. 134)
EDUCATIONAL AND SCHOOL REQUIREMENTS
37. Special education students must be evaluated within 120 days of
referral and placed. The DCPS must evaluate or assess a student who may
have a disability and who may require special education services within
120 days of referral. Those students who can be classified as having a
disability must be placed in an appropriate special education program.
(Sec. 121)
38. No funds may be used to pay attorneys’ fees accrued prior to
the effective date of this Act that exceeds a cap imposed on the
attorneys’ fees by prior appropriations Acts that were in effect
during the fiscal year when the work was performed, or when payment was
requested for work previously performed, in an action or proceeding
brought against the DC Public Schools under the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act. No later than 60 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Superintendent of DC Public Schools must
submit to the Congressional appropriations committees a written report
for 1999, 2000, and 2001, detailing a complete itemized list, by year,
of the judgments for attorneys’ fees awarded to plaintiffs who
prevailed in cases brought against the DC public schools under the
Disabilities Act. The report will specify (1) the amount of each
judgment; (2) the total amount paid on each judgment as of the date of
the report; (3) the principal balance remaining due on each such
judgment as of the date of the report, the amount of interest due as of
December 31, 2001 on each unpaid amount, and the prospective annual rate
of interest applicable to the judgment as of January 1, 2002; (4) the
name of the Court and case number for each judgment; (5) the aggregate
total due in principal and interest on the judgments; and (6) the amount
paid by DC, in each case listed, to defense counsel representing the DC
Public Schools. (Sec. 140)
RIDERS REQUESTED OF CONGRESS BY DC GOVERNMENT
39. The Council Chairman’s salary is increased under a formula. The
Home Rule Act is amended so that the Chairman of the DC Council will
receive compensation, payable in equal installments, at a rate equal to
$10,000 less than the annual compensation of the Mayor. (Sec. 136)
40. Risk management for settlements and judgments. In addition to any
other authority to pay claims and judgments, any department, agency, or
instrumentality of the District government may pay the settlement or
judgment of a claim or lawsuit in an amount less than $10,000, in
accordance with the Risk Management for Settlements and Judgments
Amendment Act of 2000, effective October 19, 2000. (Sec. 137)
41. To waive the period of Congressional review of the Closing of
Portions of 2nd and N Streets, NE and Alley System in Square
710, S.O. 00-97, Act of 2001. (Sec. 138)
Back to top of page
Table 3:
Summary Of Riders Cut From DC’s FY 2002 Budget
LEGAL OVERRIDES AND SOCIAL RESTRICTIONS
1. A privately funded needle exchange program to reduce the spread of
AIDS may not be operated within 1,000 feet of a school. It shall be
unlawful for any person to distribute any needle or syringe for the
hypodermic injection of any illegal drug in any area of DC which is
within 1,000 feet of a public or private elementary or secondary school.
Approved sites are listed. The Executive Director of the Housing
Authority must submit reports to the Congressional committees with
information ascertaining if there are any concerns about the needle
exchange program by public housing residents. If police or a significant
number of residents recommend moving the site, the DC government will
take action.
2. No funds (federal or local) may be used to implement DC’s
domestic partnership law. No funds may be used to implement Health Care
Benefits Expansion Act of 1992 for cohabiting couples, or to implement
or enforce any system of registration of unmarried, cohabiting couples
(whether homosexual, heterosexual, or lesbian), including but not
limited to registration for the purpose of extending employment, health,
or governmental benefits to such couples on the same basis that such
benefits are extended to legally married couples.
BUDGETARY CONTROLS AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS
3. The DC government must conduct its financial management in
accordance with a comprehensive financial management policy. The DC Home
Rule Act is amended requiring the CFO to submit a financial management
policy to the Mayor no later than April 1, 2001 for review and
modification, after which it will go to the Council by May 1, 2001, who
will submit it to the Control Board for a 30-day review. They will
submit it to Congressional oversight committees and the policy shall
take effect 30 days after it is submitted. The comprehensive financial
management policy shall include a cash management policy, a debt
management policy, a financial asset management policy, an emergency
reserve management policy, a contingency reserve management policy, and
a policy for determining real property tax exemptions. The CFO must
review the policy at the end of the fiscal year and submit proposed
changes to the Mayor no later than July 1 of each year and submit any
changes to the Council no later than August 1 of each year, and submit
any changes to Congressional oversight committees by September 1 of each
year.
4. The Mayor must submit to Congress revised revenue estimates no
later than 30 days after the end of the first quarter for use in the
following year’s budget request. Official midyear estimates will be
used for the midyear report.
5. The Control Board must approve the DC Public Schools and UDC’s
budgets. The Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance
Authority (Control Board) shall vote on and approve the annual budgets
of DC Public Schools and the University of DC prior to submission in
Mayor’s annual budget before it is submitted to the Council.
6. DC must audit the DC Highway Trust Fund and report to Congress
yearly. The Inspector General, no later than February 1 each year, shall
audit the DC Highway Trust Fund for the preceding fiscal year. The
Inspector General shall examine statements forecasting the Trust Fund
for the next five fiscal years and report to Congress.
7. DC must follow specific reporting requirements before leasing new
government property. Neither the DC government nor independent agencies
of the DC government may rent property for its use under a lease unless
the lease and an abstract of the lease has been filed with the central
office of the Deputy Mayor for Economic Development, in an indexed
registry available for public inspection. Additional, this information
must be included in periodic reports to the Mayor, Council, and
Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and Senate
describing specific information.
8. DC must develop and implement a plan for managing DC’s real
property assets. No funds may be used for leases and real property
purchases unless certain conditions are met, including: the Mayor,
Council, and Congressional Committees must certify that there is a need
beyond that which exists; the Mayor and Council will periodically survey
all District property to determine if there is surplus; the Mayor must
periodically sell surplus properties which the majority of the Council
agree are surplus; the Mayor and Council—within 60 days after Congress
approves the budget—must provide a comprehensive report on the
management of DC real property assets and implementation of the plan.
9. In budgeting, DC must report to Congress on its management savings
projections and outcomes. DC must submit to Congress a list of potential
adjustments to the budget that might be necessary due to the inability
of management to save money where they thought they would.
10. The Home Rule Act is amended to establish a contingency reserve
fund as an interest-bearing account (separate from other accounts in the
General Fund) into which the Mayor must deposit no later than October 1st
(beginning with year 2005) the amount required to maintain a balance of
at least 3 percent of the total budget appropriated for operating
expenditures. Minimum emergency reserve balance and applicable
percentages are defined. Interest must remain in the fund and can only
be withdrawn for specific reasons to be developed by the CFO in
consultation with the Mayor, including but not limited to nonrecurring
or unforeseen needs that arise during the fiscal year, including
expenses associated with unforeseen weather or other natural disasters,
unexpected obligations created by Federal law or new public safety or
health needs or requirements. The fund may be used to cover revenue
shortfalls for three consecutive months (based on a two month rolling
average) that are 5 percent or more believe the budget forecast. It may
not be used to fund shortfalls in any projected reductions that are
included in the budget. Allocations may be made only after an analysis
has been prepared by the CFO. DC must appropriate sufficient funds each
fiscal year to replenish amounts used to maintain 3 percent of the total
budget. The CFO must submit a quarterly report to the Mayor, Council,
Control Board and Congressional committees.
11. Public Housing Police of the DC Housing Authority must prepare
and submit to the Executive Director of the Housing Authority a monthly
report on illegal drug activity at or near any public housing site where
a needle exchange program is conducted. The Executive Director must
submit these reports to Congressional committees.
12. DC must explain non-descriptive terms in all budget documents.
Budget reports containing a category of activities labeled with a
non-descriptive term, such as "other" or
"miscellaneous," must include a description of activities and
a detailed breakdown of costs for each activity.
CONTRACTING RESTRICTIONS
13. Except in the case of an emergency as defined, the public charter
schools must publish notices of contracts over $25,000 in the DC
Register and newspapers of general circulation no less than 7 days
before awarding the contract. This does not apply to any contract for
the lease or purchase of real property by a public charter school, any
employment contract for a staff member of a public charter school, or
any management contract entered into by a public charter school and the
management company designated in its charter or its petition for a
revised charter.
DC GOVERNMENT AND EMPLOYEE RESTRICTIONS AND POWERS
14. After the Mayor appoints or dismisses a Chief Financial Officer,
and the Council approves of his or her decision, Congressional oversight
committees must review this decision. The DC Home Rule Act is amended so
that after the Council confirms the appointment or dismissal of the
Chief Financial Officer, his name will be submitted to the Congressional
oversight committees for a 30-day review and comment period before the
appointment takes effect. CFO’s job duties specified.
15. The Mayor must report to Congress an index of all employment
personnel and consulting contracts, including the severance clause of
each contract, and until indexed, no payment shall be made.
16. Employees of the DC government will only receive compensation for
overtime in excess of 40 hours per week.
17. The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 will be amended. This will
provide that employees of the Trustee will be treated as federal
employees under certain provisions of Title V, US Code, including
retirement, life and health insurance.
18. The Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency (CSOSA) may
implement and administer its Drug Free Workplace Program for employment
applicants.
19. DC must pay interest on late payments to court appointed
attorneys.
20. Amend Sec. 158(b) of PL 106-113 to read that $5 million earmarked
for transportation project.
21. DC cannot transfer high security prisoners to its Youngstown,
Ohio facility. No funds may be used to move DC prisons classified above
the medium security level (defined by the Federal Bureau of Prisons) to
the private facility in Youngstown, Ohio for DC prisoners.
22. Congress remains concerned about the quality of care provided to
patients at Saint Elizabeths Hospital. Congress urges the dc government
to implement performance improvement measures, including the development
of partnerships between the District and private entities, to improve
the quality of care provided to Saint Elizabeths hospital patients.
23. The Mayor is granted leasing authority over Marina and fish
wharf. The Mayor is given exclusive authority to approve and execute
leases of the Washington Marina and the Washington municipal fish wharf
for an initial term of 30 years.
24. Court-appointed receivers control their portion of the DC budget.
Court-appointed receivers or other count-appointed officials over any
departments or agencies of the DC government must prepare and submit a
budget to be included in DC’s annual budget submission. The Council
and Mayor may make recommendations, but have no authority to revise
estimates.
25. The Council may delegate authority over Tobacco Settlement Money.
The Home Rule Act is amended so that the Council may delegate authority
to the DC Tobacco Settlement Financing Corporation the authority of the
Council to issue revenue bonds, notes, and other obligations used to
borrow money to finance or assist in financing or refinancing capital
projects and other undertakings payable solely from and secured by
payments under the Master Tobacco Settlement Agreement.
26. Administrator of EPA not prohibited form cooperative agreements
and grants authorized by law which effect real property of the federal
government.
EDUCATIONAL AND SCHOOL REQUIREMENTS
27. The University of the District of Columbia and the Superintendent
of the DC Public Schools must submit a quarterly report to Congressional
oversight committees, no later than 15 calendar days after the end of
each quarter, laying out (1) current quarter expenditures and
obligations, year-to-date expenditures and obligations, and total fiscal
year expenditure projections versus budget broken out of the basis of
control center, responsibility center, and object class, and for all
funds, non-appropriated funds, and capital financing; (2) a list of each
account for which spending is frozen and the amount of funds frozen,
broken out by control center, responsibility center, detailed object,
and for all funding sources; (3) a list of all active contracts over
$10,000 yearly; (4) all reprogramming requests submitted to the Board of
Education; (5) all reprogramming that has been made in compliance with
law; (6) an updated organizational chart showing previous and current
structures. In addition, each must prepare an accurate and verifiable
report on positions and employees. Specific reporting formats must be
followed.
28. A public charter school which offers a preschool or
prekindergarten program is subject to the same child care licensing
requirements (if any) which apply to a DC public school which offers
such a program.
29. No funds may be used to pay an attorney representing a winning
party against the DC Public Schools under the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act if the hourly rate exceeds a specified amount
and in no case may the total exceed $2,500.
30. Congress encourages the Control Board to sell DC school property.
It is the sense of the Congress that the Control Board should quickly
sell the Franklin School property which has been vacant for over 20
years.
31. Credit enhancement fund for public charter schools. $5 million
set aside.
32. Transfer of property south of Silverbrook Road to Fairfax County
for educational purposes (DC’s Lorton Prison land).
33. Meadowood Farm land exchange (Lorton property north of
Silverbrook Road).
|
