On July 16, the House approved, 219-208, the FY2010 Financial Services and General Government spending bill (H.R. 3071). The House Appropriations Committee approved the bill on July 7 (see The Source, 7/10/09); the Senate Appropriations Committee approved its version of the measure on July 9 (see The Source, 7/10/09).
During debate on the measure, an amendment by Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) to reduce discretionary spending in the bill by five percent, was rejected, 184-247.
The committee report details a number of programs of interest to women and their families:
|
Program/Agency |
FY2009 |
||
|
District of Columbia Federal Payment for Resident Tuition |
$35.1 million |
$35.1 million (p. 49 of the House report) |
$35.1 million (p. 49) |
|
District of Columbia Federal Payment for Courts |
$248.409 million |
$248.952 million (p. 50 of the House report) |
$268.92 million (p. 50) |
|
District of Columbia Federal Payment for Defender Services |
$52.475 million |
$52.475 million (p. 51 of the House report) |
$55 million (p. 51) |
|
District of Columbia Federal Payment for Public Health Services |
— |
— |
$4 million (p. 56) |
|
Small Business Administration |
$1.342 billion (including funding from P.L. 111-5) |
$779.3 million (p. 91 of the House report) |
$847.987 million (p. 91) |
|
Women’s Business Centers |
$13.75 million (p. 20of the FY2010 SBA Budget justification) |
$13.02 million (p. 120 of the Senate report) |
$14 million (p. 91) |
|
National Women’s Business Council |
$775,000 (p. 20) |
$773,000 (p. 120 of the Senate report) |
$1 million (p. 91) |
|
Microloan Technical Assistance |
$20 million (p. 20) |
$10 million (p. 92 of the House report) |
$10 million (p. 91) |
|
PRIME Program (Program for Investment in Microentrepreneurs) |
$5 million (p. 20) |
$3.12 million (p. 120 of the Senate report) |
$8 million (p. 91) |
|
HUBZone (Historically Underutilized Business Zone) |
$2.15 million (p. 20) |
$2.184 million (p. 120 of the Senate report) |
$2.184 million (p. 91) |
|
Small Business Development Centers (SBDC) |
$110 million (p. 20) |
$97 million (p. 120 of the Senate report) |
$110 million (p. 91) |
The committee “recommends a federal payment of $4 million for HIV/AIDS prevention initiatives. This funding was not requested in the president’s budget, but was proposed by the mayor of the District of Columbia. The District is in the midst of an HIV/AIDS epidemic. Based on the national HIV/AIDS case reporting system, the District currently has the highest HIV/AIDS rate in the country nearly twice as high as New York City and five times as high as Detroit. Estimates indicate that between three to five percent of the adult residents in the District are currently living with HIV or AIDS. The District has developed policies and programs to provide innovative HIV/AIDS prevention, care, and support services on a citywide basis. However, District resources are insufficient to permit broad implementation of these programs. This federal payment will enable the District to provide testing, counseling, and other prevention services in communities most affected by the spread of HIV/AIDS. The committee directs the District of Columbia to provide a spending plan for these funds within 45 days of enactment of this act” (p. 56).
The bill “takes further steps towards reducing undue congressional interference in local affairs and eliminating restrictions on the District that do not apply to other parts of the nation. As requested by the president, the bill eliminates the prohibition on use of locally raised funds for abortion—thereby placing the District in the same position as each of the 50 states in that regard. The measure also eliminates a ban on use of funds for domestic partnership registration and benefits and a ban on use of funds for needle exchange programs, and allows the District to conduct and implement a referendum on use of marijuana for medical purposes, as has been done in various states” (p. 8).
The bill continues the “provision prohibiting the expenditure of funds for abortion under the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program” (p. 102).
