[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
H.R. 960, AND H.R. 1045, GREATER AUTONOMY FOR THE NATION'S CAPITOL
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FEDERAL WORKFORCE,
POSTAL SERVICE, AND THE DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA
of the
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
ON
H.R. 960
TO AMEND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HOME RULE ACT TO ELIMINATE
CONGRESSIONAL REVIEW OF NEWLY-PASSED DISTRICT LAWS
AND ON
H.R. 1045
TO AMEND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HOME RULE ACT TO ELIMINATE ALL
FEDERALLY-IMPOSED MANDATES OVER THE LOCAL BUDGET PROCESS AND FINANCIAL
MANAGEMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE BORROWING OF MONEY BY
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
__________
NOVEMBER 18, 2009
__________
Serial No. 111-66
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
http://www.house.gov/reform
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
57-789 WASHINGTON : 2010
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York, Chairman
PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania DARRELL E. ISSA, California
CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York DAN BURTON, Indiana
ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland JOHN L. MICA, Florida
DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana
JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio
DIANE E. WATSON, California LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia
STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina
JIM COOPER, Tennessee BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia JIM JORDAN, Ohio
MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois JEFF FLAKE, Arizona
MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah
Columbia AARON SCHOCK, Illinois
PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri
DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois ANH ``JOSEPH'' CAO, Louisiana
CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
HENRY CUELLAR, Texas
PAUL W. HODES, New Hampshire
CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut
PETER WELCH, Vermont
BILL FOSTER, Illinois
JACKIE SPEIER, California
STEVE DRIEHAUS, Ohio
JUDY CHU, California
Ron Stroman, Staff Director
Michael McCarthy, Deputy Staff Director
Carla Hultberg, Chief Clerk
Larry Brady, Minority Staff Director
Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, Postal Service, and the District of
Columbia
STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts, Chairman
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah
Columbia MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana
DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland ANH ``JOSEPH'' CAO, Louisiana
DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia
William Miles, Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on November 18, 2009................................ 1
Text of H.R. 960................................................. 8
Text of H.R. 1045................................................ 14
Statement of:
Fenty, Adrian M., Mayor, District of Columbia; Vincent Gray,
chairman, District of Columbia City Council; Natwar Gandhi,
chief financial officer, District of Columbia; Alice M.
Rivlin, senior fellow of economic studies, Brookings
Institution and director, Greater Washington Research; and
Walter Smith, executive director, District of Columbia
Appleseed Center for Law and Justice....................... 33
Fenty, Adrian M.......................................... 33
Gandhi, Natwar........................................... 52
Gray, Vincent............................................ 38
Rivlin, Alice M.......................................... 67
Smith, Walter............................................ 73
Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
Connolly, Hon. Gerald E., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Virginia, prepared statement of............... 31
Fenty, Adrian M., Mayor, District of Columbia, prepared
statement of............................................... 35
Gandhi, Natwar, chief financial officer, District of
Columbia, prepared statement of............................ 54
Gray, Vincent, chairman, District of Columbia City Council,
prepared statement of...................................... 40
Lynch, Hon. Stephen F., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Massachusetts:
Prepared statement of.................................... 6
Prepared statement of Robert Brannum..................... 2
Norton, Hon. Eleanor Holmes, a Delgate in Congress from the
District of Columbia, prepared statement of................ 23
Rivlin, Alice M., senior fellow of economic studies,
Brookings Institution and director, Greater Washington
Research, prepared statement of............................ 69
Smith, Walter, executive director, District of Columbia
Appleseed Center for Law and Justice, prepared statement of 75
H.R. 960, AND H.R. 1045, GREATER AUTONOMY FOR THE NATION'S CAPITOL
----------
WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2009
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on Federal Workforce, Postal Service,
and the District of Columbia,
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Stephen F. Lynch
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Lynch, Norton, Kucinich, Clay,
Connolly, Chaffetz, Bilbray, and Towns (ex-officio).
Staff present: William Miles, staff director; Aisha
Elkheshin, clerk/legislative assistant; Dan Zeidman, deputy
clerk/legislative assistant; Adam Fromm, minority chief clerk
and Member liaison; Howard Denis, minority senior counsel;
Mitchell Kominsky, minority counsel; and Alex Cooper, minority
professional staff member.
Mr. Lynch. Good morning. The Subcommittee on Federal
Workforce, Postal Service, and the District of Columbia hearing
will now come to order. I want to welcome Ranking Member
Chaffetz; members of the subcommittee; our chairman, Ed Towns,
the gentleman from New York; all the witnesses; and also those
in attendance at today's hearing.
The purpose of today's hearing is to examine the merits and
potential impact of H.R. 960, the District of Columbia
Legislative Autonomy Act of 2009, and H.R. 1045, the District
of Columbia Budget Autonomy Act of 2009, collectively. These
measures introduced by Representative Eleanor Holmes Norton are
intended to advance the concept of self governance in the
District of Columbia.
The chairman, ranking member, and subcommittee members will
each have 5 minutes to make opening statements and all Members
will have 3 days to submit statements for the record.
Before I get started with my statement today, I would like
to ask unanimous consent that the statement of Robert Brannum,
chairman of the Fifth District Citizens' Advisory Council, be
entered into the record. Hearing no objections, that is so
ordered.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Brannum follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7789.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7789.002
Mr. Lynch. As mentioned earlier, the subcommittee convenes
today's legislative hearing to examine H.R. 960, the District
of Columbia Legislative Autonomy Act of 2009, and H.R. 1045,
the District of Columbia Budget Autonomy Act of 2009. These are
two bills in a series of legislative proposals introduced by
Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton to promote greater autonomy
and self governance for the residents and elected officials of
the District of Columbia.
Established by Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 of the U.S.
Constitution, the District of Columbia came to be our Nation's
Capital in order to protect the institutions of national
Government and to prevent the disproportionate influence of any
particular State. In establishing the seat of the Federal
Government, the Constitution granted Congress exclusive
legislative control over the District of Columbia. However,
since ratification of the ``District Clause,'' Congress has
employed various approaches to municipal governance in the
Nation's Capital. Most notably, in 1973 Congress enacted the
District of Columbia Self Government and Governmental
Reorganization Act, also known as the Home Rule Act.
The Home Rule Act created the District's current governing
structure, complete with a duly elected Mayor and City Council,
thereby setting the Nation's Capital on the road toward self
governance. While the Home Rule Act of 1973 represented a
significant step forward for the city's municipality, the act
also came with an array of checks and balances such as the
requirement that Congress review all locally passed legislation
as well as the District's annual budget before final enactment
can occur.
Although the Home Rule Act attempted to strike a balance
between Congress's constitutionally derived authority and the
need to delegate aspects of this power to a local government,
the fact of the matter is that certain provisions of the act
have created a costly and sometimes unpredictable public
policymaking process and an unaccommodating fiscal budget cycle
for the city. It is for these reasons that my colleague Ms.
Norton has introduced H.R. 960 and H.R. 1045 to do away with
certain aspects of Congress's review authority as outlined in
the provisions of the Home Rule Act.
Specifically, H.R. 960, the District of Columbia
Legislative Autonomy Act of 2009, would eliminate the 30 and 60
day congressional review periods for criminal and civil laws
passed by the District government. Along the same lines, H.R.
1045, the District of Columbia Budget Autonomy Act of 2009,
would remove the statutory requirement that Congress annually
approve the District's fiscal year budget, which is principally
raised from local revenue sources.
While collectively H.R. 960 and H.R. 1045 will
fundamentally reshape the way Congress is involved in the local
legislative and budgetary matters of the Nation's Capital,
nothing in either of the measures being discussed today can or
will eliminate Congress's exclusive constitutional authority
over the District of Columbia. In other words, Congress will
retain the power to repeal or amend local laws through the
routine passage of legislation and its right to annually review
the myriad of Federal payments to the District of Columbia.
That said, the subcommittee is interested in exploring the
pros and cons of these two proposals and pro-home rule
measures, which is the main purpose of today's hearing.
The District is home to nearly 575,000 tax-paying American
citizens, many of whom have served in our Nation's armed forces
and have gone to the polls to elect their own city officials to
carry out the business of local governance. Even in light of
some of the city's ongoing policy challenges and its
longstanding structural budget imbalance, the District of
Columbia has made great strides over the past decade in its
capacity to govern. That is why I believe today's discussion on
revisiting Congress's approach to overseeing the legislative
and budgetary matters of the Nation's Capital is certainly
warranted.
Again, I would like to thank my colleagues, especially
Eleanor Holmes Norton for her tireless work in this policy
matter and for bringing the concerns of her district to the
forefront of this committee's and this Congress's business. I
welcome all those in attendance this afternoon. I look forward
to hearing your testimony on these important legislative
matters.
I welcome my colleague, Ranking Member Chaffetz, the
gentleman from Utah, to offer 5 minutes for an opening
statement.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Stephen F. Lynch and the
texts of H.R. 960 and H.R. 1045 follow:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7789.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7789.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7789.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7789.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7789.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7789.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7789.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7789.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7789.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7789.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7789.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7789.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7789.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7789.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7789.067
Mr. Chaffetz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for
being here.
Our U.S. Constitution says Congress is ``to exercise
exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over such
District.''
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Lynch. The chairman now recognizes the gentle lady from
the District of Columbia, Eleanor Holmes Norton, for 5 minutes
for an opening statement.
Ms. Norton. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to welcome my
good friends from the District--Mayor Fenty, Council Chair
Gray, and the other witnesses at the table who are most expert
in the affairs of the District of Columbia, more so than I or
any of us in Congress could possibly be. But particularly, Mr.
Chairman, I want to thank you for affording us this hearing
which helps us to reach the goal I have set out here in the
Congress to have a hearing this year and for the second half of
the 111th Congress to see the Congress take the historic step
of bringing the District from its paternalistic oversight. That
is a very kind way, Mr. Chairman, to put it, if I may say so.
This is an anachronism. I don't think any American would be
proud of the fact that a jurisdiction that raises $6 billion on
its own can't spend a dime until the Congress says it may or
would be proud of what we put our Council through in order for
laws to become final in the District of Columbia.
If you live in the Virgin Islands or Puerto Rico or Guam--I
have good friends who are Delegates from those territories--you
never hear the Congress of the United States attaching anything
to your budget because they never see your budget. By the way,
they don't pay Federal income taxes the way our residents do at
a rate of second per capita in the United States.
Mr. Chairman, so that you will understand that this is not
so radical a proposal, in the original Home Rule Act the Senate
would indeed have given the District budget autonomy. In the
compromises that always go on in this place, that was removed.
It has created huge operational problems and delays for the
District of Columbia.
We, the Congress of the United States, have the power to
wipe out every law that the District passes because we retain
authority. The Home Rule Act is a delegated authority so we
retain the authority to do whatever we want to the District.
That really emphasizes why it is time for the Congress to help
the District come into the 21st century.
Mr. Chairman, I do want to give recognition to my friends
in the minority. During the 12 years when I was in the
minority, I was able to negotiate two steps that make this a
logical step.
One was the midyear budget autonomy bill. It will seem
astonishing to most Americans that in the middle of the year
the District had to come here to ask the Congress essentially
if it could spend the money it collected the first half of the
year. So the District had to be on the first supplemental,
creating another delay for the District. When I was in the
minority, that was given up and that bill was passed.
And when I was in the minority--and this is why I believe
this is and will be a bipartisan bill--and pointed out the
hardships on the District of having our budget go 3 or 4 months
past even our September 30th deadline, they agreed and have for
at least half a dozen or perhaps 10 years. So the District
budget has gotten out on the first continuing resolution.
But look at that. What is a continuing resolution?
Continuing resolutions are for Government agencies. Therefore
we continue to be treated as a Government agency.
It is huge problem for the District that our budget year is
attuned to the Federal budget year whereas in your district and
in Mr. Chaffetz's district the budget year is over by the
summer. You can prepare for school. Our folks have to prepare
for school, which is one of the great if not the overriding
goal or issue in the District of Columbia, without its budget
in hand. It has created terrible problems in the past when the
budget was delayed.
The legislative autonomy is even more laughable. The budget
autonomy it seems to me speaks for itself. Most people don't
know what Chairman Gray and the Council go through in order to
get a bill to be final.
I am going to let him describe a process that is not even
used in the Congress anymore. That is to say, we do not indeed
use resolutions of disapproval. You have never had one brought
from my colleagues on the other side and certainly not from us.
We don't issue a resolution of disapproval, vote on it here,
and then go vote on it in the Senate. But we require the
District to act as if we do. The District has to come here and
wait for 30 legislative days or 60 legislative days if it is
criminal matter. Well, we are not in for 5 legislative days
many days, so the District's laws can go many months without
being final. Yet we say to Mayor Fenty and Chairman Gray, you
run that city and you make sure you run it efficiently because
if you don't, you will hear from people up here saying you are
not a very efficient city.
No jurisdiction in the United States is faced with such
handicaps, particularly handicaps for which there is no reason
today. If the reason is control, you retain the control.
You will hear finally the CFO, the chief financial officer,
talk about the cost the real cost to the city--which is not a
State, of having redundant oversight from the Congress of the
United States.
Mr. Chairman, Chairman Towns, and my good friend Mr.
Chaffetz have an opportunity, it seems to me, to do for the
District what was done for the District in 1973--take the
historic step of giving the District the last two important
elements of home rule for the District of Columbia. I couldn't
thank you enough for what you have done for us today.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton
follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7789.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7789.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7789.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7789.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7789.009
Mr. Lynch. I thank the gentle lady. I would like to go out
of order just to allow the full chairman of the committee, the
gentleman from Brooklyn, NY, Mr. Towns, 5 minutes for an
opening statement. We thank him for his attendance here today.
Mr. Towns. Thank you very much, Congressman Lynch. I would
like to thank Congressman Lynch and Congressman Chaffetz for
holding this hearing on autonomy for the District of Columbia.
I thank my good friend, Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton,
for her hard work on behalf of the District.
Let me again thank the witnesses for their attendance here
today. I want to let you know that we really appreciate your
being here. Welcome, Mayor Fenty. On behalf of the Committee on
Oversight and Government Reform, I thank the Mayor for his
attendance this morning. I want to thank Councilman Brown. I
want to thank Councilman Gray and the other elected and
appointed officials for coming.
I support home rule and self governance in the District.
Over the years the District has achieved great independence. Of
course, this has been done through the District's own advocacy.
By the adoption of the Home Rule Act and the end of involvement
by the Control Board in the District's finances among other
measures, the District has steadily proved its ability to
manage its own affairs. They even passed a balanced budget
during an economic crisis that has greatly affected many State
and local governments. I applaud the progress that has been
made in the District and your efforts to implement the
principle of home rule.
I look forward to working very closely with Congresswoman
Norton; Chairman Lynch; the ranking member, Congressman
Chaffetz; and of course you, too, Mayor Fenty to make certain
that home rule is a reality. Now I know that it has been a long
battle and a long struggle. But I think that we have to
continue the fight and continue to push on.
My son, who serves in the State Assembly in New York, says
to me that sometimes people just catch on faster than others.
There is a thing called individual differences. He says
sometimes it takes people 2\1/2\ hours to watch 60 Minutes. It
doesn't mean they can't watch it, it just takes them a lot
longer. So we hope, as we continue to talk about the importance
of home rule, that eventually the other Members of Congress
will get it and understand how important it is to move this
forward. Congresswoman Norton, keep pushing.
I yield back.
Mr. Lynch. I thank the gentleman. The Chair now recognizes
the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Cummings, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to
thank you and Mr. Chaffetz for holding this vitally important
hearing to examine two pieces of legislation that would
increase autonomy for the Federal tax-paying residents of the
District of Columbia--H.R. 960, the District of Columbia
Legislative Autonomy Act of 2009, and H.R. 1045, the District
of Columbia Budget Autonomy Act of 2009.
I appreciate the opportunity to move forward on these
pieces of legislation as part of Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes
Norton's Free and Equal D.C. Legislative Initiative. I must say
to Ms. Norton, I thank you for all that you do. You have
constantly been on the battlefield on this issue and so many
others. You had to convince some of us and then to bring others
of us along to do the right thing. But you know that there are
many who are on your side. We have just got to get a few more.
In the Constitution, the ``District Clause'' was crafted to
help protect Federal interests without State cooperation and to
prevent particular State influences on the Legislature where
the Federal capital was located. Mr. Chairman, the time has
changed. The residents of the District of Columbia deserve a
government that operates for them as effectively and
efficiently as possible. These two pieces of legislation would
help achieve this goal.
H.R. 960, the District of Columbia Legislative Autonomy Act
of 2009, would eliminate congressional review of newly passed
District laws. Since the Home Rule Act established the local
District government in 1973 by allowing constituents to elect a
Mayor and City Council, Congress has rarely taken advantage of
the review process to overturn passed legislation. In fact,
only once has a resolution of disapproval been signed by the
President. That was President Bush in 1991 when he signed the
resolution related to restricting the height of buildings in
the District. This process imposes an unnecessary burden on the
U.S. Congress. I believe it is time we trusted the District of
Columbia government to pass laws for its own citizens.
H.R. 1045 would allow the District to forego congressional
review and approval of its operating capital budgets financed
from local revenues. The District budget moves through the
routine Federal appropriations process, which Congress
regularly falls short of passing before the beginning of the
fiscal year. In fact, only once since 1996 has Congress enacted
the District's budget before the start of the District's fiscal
year. Allowing the District to implement its local budget
without mandatory congressional review will prevent delay in
service funding and, more importantly, service delivery.
Citizens of the District of Columbia pay taxes and the way
those tax dollars are spent should be determined by their
elected officials.
The people of the District of Columbia deserve and demand
the full rights that they are due. I appreciate again
Congresswoman Norton's tireless efforts to achieve this for
them.
With that, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to hearing the
testimony of the witnesses. I yield back.
Mr. Lynch. I thank the gentleman. The Chair now recognizes
the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Connolly, for 5 minutes for an
opening statement.
Mr. Connolly. Thank you, Chairman Lynch. Thank you for
holding this hearing. I want to thank Congresswoman Norton for
her leadership on the District of Columbia. It is a pleasure to
welcome this panel, especially my old friends Mayor Fenty and
Chairman Gray with whom I worked for many years on the local
regional issues here in the National Capital Region.
For the life of our Republic we have relied on the
Federalist system to deliver services in a cost effective
manner that protects individual civil rights and general
welfare, except in Washington, DC. Our founders established a
system of government that constrained the power of the Federal
Government and protected local and State prerogatives, except
in Washington, DC. For the last two centuries, we have
witnessed the creative evolution of the roles of local, State,
and Federal Governments except in Washington, DC, where the
City Council's attempts to govern in accordance with its
residents' needs and desires has been constrained and thwarted
all too frequently by political gamesmanship and obstruction by
this Congress.
The District of Columbia faces many challenges.
Unfortunately, the District's residents' capacity to hold local
officials accountable in addressing these challenges is
compromised because those local officials are constrained by
congressional attempts either to manipulate laws in the
District and/or congressional failure to approve District
budgets in a timely manner. If the residents of the District
are going to hold their elected officials accountable, Congress
needs to get out of the way.
Congresswoman Norton has presented us with two bills that
would restore a Federalist balance of power to local government
in the District of Columbia. The District Legislative Autonomy
Act and the District of Columbia Budget Autonomy Act are two
notable and worthy pieces of legislation.
Some may be concerned these bills would result in things
like tighter gun controls or protection for certain people with
certain lifestyles. Whether they do or not I don't think is the
business of this Congress. I believe that Congress needs to
defend the underlying principle of local autonomy even if the
District contemplates actions with which we individually or
even collectively may disagree. It is not our business. It
simply should not be the role of Congress to meddle with local
decisionmaking. That is a principle I have always held. It is a
principle that will guide me in my future policy and votes with
respect to this local government.
I thank the Chair and yield back.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Gerald E. Connolly
follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7789.010
Mr. Lynch. I thank the gentleman. Before we turn to the
testimony of our witnesses, I would like to offer some brief
introductions of our first panel.
The Honorable Adrian M. Fenty was elected to serve as the
fifth Mayor of the District of Columbia in November 2006. As
Mayor, Mr. Fenty has made high quality public education for all
and efficient and accountable government his administration's
policy priorities. A native Washingtonian, Mayor Fenty attended
Oberlin College before earning a juris doctorate degree from
Howard University Law School. After graduating from law school,
Mayor Fenty went on to serve as a local ANC commissioner and
later as the ward 4 council member from 2001 to 2007.
The Honorable Vincent C. Gray is the current chairman of
the District of Columbia City Council. Also a native
Washingtonian and a proud graduate of the District of Columbia
public school system, Chairman Gray has developed a reputation
as a champion of young people by helping them and their
families gain access to critical social services. Prior to
being elected to chair the city's legislative body, Chairman
Gray represented the city's residents of ward 7 on the City
Council. Chairman Gray is also well known for his service as
the first executive director of the Covenant House in
Washington, an organization dedicated to serving homeless and
at risk youth.
Dr. Natwar Gandhi serves as the chief financial officer for
the government of the District of Columbia. In his position,
Dr. Gandhi is responsible for the city's finances, including
its approximately $7 billion in annual operating and capital
funds. Dr. Gandhi was appointed to this position in June 2000
and was reappointed by Mayor Fenty in January 2007. As the
independent CFO, Dr. Gandhi manages more than 1,000 staff
members in the Tax and Revenue Administration and in the
Treasury, Comptroller, and Budget Offices of the District of
Columbia.
Ms. Alice Rivlin served as the first Director of the
Congressional Budget Office and as the Chair of the District of
Columbia Control Board. Ms. Rivlin is an expert on urban issues
as well as on fiscal, monetary, and social policy. Currently
she directs the Greater Washington Research Project as a senior
economic studies fellow for the Brookings Institution.
Mr. Water Smith is the executive director of the D.C.
Appleseed Center, a nonprofit public interest organization that
addresses issues facing the Nation's Capital. Prior to his
position with D.C. Appleseed, Mr. Smith was a partner for 16
years with the city's largest law firm, Hogan and Hartson.
It is the committee's policy that all witnesses to appear
before the committee and submit testimony shall be sworn. Can I
ask you each to stand and raise your right hands?
[Witnesses sworn.]
Mr. Lynch. Let the record show that all of the witnesses
have answered in the affirmative.
Your entire written statements are entered into the record.
I trust that you have been before this committee before but I
just want to go over the ground rules. Those small boxes in
front of you will indicate green, which means that you have
time to submit your opening statement. When it turns to yellow,
it means that you should probably conclude your statement. Then
the red light means you have exceeded your time limit.
So with that, Mayor Fenty, it is an honor to have you here
before this committee. I welcome you. You are now recognized
for 5 minutes for an opening statement.
STATEMENTS OF ADRIAN M. FENTY, MAYOR, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA;
VINCENT GRAY, CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CITY COUNCIL;
NATWAR GANDHI, CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA;
ALICE M. RIVLIN, SENIOR FELLOW OF ECONOMIC STUDIES, BROOKINGS
INSTITUTION AND DIRECTOR, GREATER WASHINGTON RESEARCH; AND
WALTER SMITH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
APPLESEED CENTER FOR LAW AND JUSTICE
STATEMENT OF ADRIAN M. FENTY
Mayor Fenty. Thank you very much, Chairman Lynch; Ranking
Member Chaffetz; and distinguished subcommittee members
including my own Congresswoman Norton, Chairman Towns, and
others. It is my pleasure to be here today to speak to you
about H.R. 1045, the District of Columbia Budget Autonomy Act
of 2009, and H.R. 960, the District of Columbia Legislative
Autonomy Act of 2009.
Both bills, if enacted, would represent an important step
forward for the District of Columbia and its residents. To that
end, I would like to take a moment to recognize the outstanding
work of the District's Representative in the House,
Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton, who for years has
championed the bills before this subcommittee today and many
others designed to grant the District the autonomy it deserves.
These bills simply provide the District the same
flexibility and autonomy afforded other jurisdictions around
the country to ensure the efficient and effective delivery of
services, a fundamental responsibility of good government.
In 1973, Congress granted the District limited home rule
powers and empowered the citizens of the District to elect a
Mayor and a City Council. At the same time, however, Congress
retained the power to review and approve all District laws
including the District's annual budget. This makes the District
unique among jurisdictions that perform State level functions,
as the District does, in that Congress approves not only
Federal funding for the District but also the spending of our
local funds, a practice that ultimately hinders good
government.
The District government of today is not the District
government of the 1990's which saw the creation of the
congressionally mandated Control Board because of unsound
financial practices. Thanks in part to the work of my
predecessor, Mayor Anthony Williams, we have come a long way
since then. We are not going back.
This year the District submitted to Congress its 14th
consecutive balanced budget. We continue to exercise sound
financial management practices, a fact validated by the A+
credit rating awarded to our bonds by the Nation's rating
agencies. I am confident Dr. Gandhi will speak to the
significance of that in a few minutes but I hope my point is
clear. The District's fiscal house is in order. The time has
come to lessen the burdens imposed by congressional approval of
the District's budget.
Current law subjects the District's budget to the Federal
appropriations process which requires District agencies to plan
their budgets almost a year in advance to allow for
congressional approval. The approval process often causes
unnecessary delays in service delivery and prevents the
District from responding quickly to changing public needs.
As a primary deliverer of services, local governments can
only be effective if they can respond to changing circumstances
in a timely and responsive manner. Unfortunately, Congress
fails to approve the District's budget on time virtually every
year, resulting in a near 3 month delay on average, a period in
which critical new investments cannot be made. The District
also faces challenges over the course of the fiscal year as any
midyear adjustments caused by changes in revenue must be
reviewed by Congress.
Many of the issues I have raised regarding budget autonomy
also apply to the issue of legislative autonomy. Article 1,
Section 8 of the Constitution allows the House and Senate to
examine every piece of legislation by the Council. Depending on
the nature of the legislation, however, we must wait 30 or 60
legislative days for passive congressional approval before
legislation becomes law. As I said in my testimony on this
matter 2 years ago, this makes me the only chief executive of a
city or State in this country for whom the act of signing
legislation does not make the legislation final. It also means
the Council of the District of Columbia passes hundreds of
bills every year that must await congressional approval, the
vast majority of which are of no interest to Congress
whatsoever.
The limited legislative autonomy granted by the bill
proposed by Congresswoman Norton would maximize the use of
taxpayer dollars, reduce inefficiencies caused by a complicated
legislative process required to comply with Federal law, and
allow the District to realize a greater measure of self
government. I urge this Congress to take swift action on these
two pieces of important legislation.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify today. I am happy
to answer any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mayor Fenty follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7789.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7789.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7789.013
Mr. Lynch. Thank you. Chairman Gray, you are now recognized
for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF VINCENT GRAY
Mr. Gray. Thank you very much, Chairman Lynch. Thank you to
the ranking member, Mr. Chaffetz, and to the other Members who
have joined us today. I am Vincent C. Gray, chairman of the
Council of the District of Columbia.
I want to thank you again, Chairman Lynch, for holding this
hearing on two important pieces of legislation--H.R. 1045, the
District of Columbia Budget Autonomy Act of 2009, and H.R. 960,
the District of Columbia Legislative Autonomy Act. I also want
to thank my Congresswoman, Eleanor Holmes Norton, for
introducing both of these bills on behalf of the District of
Columbia.
These two bills, along with the District of Columbia House
Voting Rights Act, would provide the first real advancement of
home rule in the District since the congressional enactment of
the limited Home Rule Act over 30 years ago.
The District must develop its budget in a timeframe that
complies with the complicated and lengthy Federal
appropriations process, as has been stated. The Federal
appropriations process forces the District to develop its
budget months in advance of the timeframe needed by the city.
In fact, the District has had to adopt the Federal fiscal year
of October 1st to September 30th when another fiscal year may
be more appropriate to the city. The congressional
appropriations schedule prevents the District from using more
current revenue estimates and expenditure needs that would lead
to a budget based on better and more complete data.
In the last several years, Congress has granted approval of
the District's local budget by the beginning of the fiscal year
without approving Federal appropriations. But that timely
approval is not guaranteed for every year. The approval of H.R.
1045 would provide that guarantee by removing the approval of
the District's local budget by the Congress. Under the proposed
legislation, Congress would still maintain its constitutionally
established oversight authority.
Half of our total budget is funded by local dollars
generated within the District of Columbia. The local budget is
funded by local District revenue, not Federal dollars. This
reason alone justifies why the District should be allowed to
approve its own budget.
I believe the District has earned the right to budget
autonomy. We have come from under the authority of the
Financial Control Board. We have maintained a strong financial
position, including a fund balance of $1 billion. We have
received clean audits for the last decade. Bond rating agencies
have consistently increased our ratings. We have strong
internal financial controls.
On the issue of legislative autonomy, after 35 years the
process for enacting laws in the District needs to be revised.
This process once again denies District residents the basic
right granted to other U.S. citizens--the right to enact our
own local laws. What is even more interesting is the fact that
four territories have been allowed to enact their own laws
without congressional review.
The current process involves a review period of 30
legislative days for civil laws and 60 legislative days for
criminal laws. Because the actual legislative days depend on
when Congress is in session and not on calendar days, enactment
of many District laws is delayed well beyond the 30 or 60 days
involved. This prevents the city from enacting laws that are
important to addressing the continuous and often changing needs
of the city in a timely manner. An example of this was the
enactment by the Council of updated terminology found in the
D.C. Official Code changing the word ``handicap'' to
``disability.'' The congressional review for this change was 9
months.
In order to address the needs of government, the Council
must use a Byzantine process of passing laws on an emergency,
temporary, and permanent basis. A bill passed on an emergency
basis is enacted for only 90 calendar days. Because many pieces
of legislation passed by the Council do not complete their
congressional review during the emergency enactment period, the
Council must also pass temporary laws that are in effect for
225 days following the end of the emergency enactment period.
In addition, the Council must pass the permanent bill so that
ultimately there is a final law that becomes part of the D.C.
Code.
In fact, in most of the years between 1997 and 2008,
emergency and temporary bills have amounted to over two-thirds
of the bills enacted by the Council. We have appended to our
testimony a graphic example of that which hopefully you will
take a look at. But just within the last Council period that
ended in 2008, we had over 600 laws that were passed in the
District of Columbia; 465 of those laws were emergency and
temporary laws in order to be able to deal with the very
difficult process that we face as a result of the current
provision under which we operate.
Now is the time to grant the District the right to self
determination, budget autonomy, legislative autonomy, and the
right to voting representation. I ask you, Chairman Lynch, and
the other members of the subcommittee to grant the District
government the self determination that all other governments in
our country enjoy and to move our residents toward more full
citizenship in this Nation.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gray follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7789.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7789.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7789.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7789.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7789.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7789.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7789.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7789.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7789.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7789.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7789.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7789.025
Mr. Lynch. I thank you, sir. Dr. Gandhi, you are now
recognized for 5 minutes for an opening statement.
STATEMENT OF NATWAR GANDHI
Mr. Gandhi. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Mr.
Chairman, Chairman Towns, Ranking Member Chaffetz, our own
Congresswoman Norton, and members of the committee. As you
pointed out, I am Natwar Gandhi, chief financial officer for
the District.
I am here to testify today and wholeheartedly endorse
expanding the authority of the District to manage its own
financial affairs. Not only do I believe that the District's
elected leadership has demonstrated its ability to adhere to
principles of fiscal responsibility, I also believe that
greater budget autonomy would provide the citizens of the
District as well as visitors with the highest quality of public
services in a timely manner.
The chart that appears before you, Mr. Chairman, is a
history of the remarkable fiscal comeback achieved by the
District over the past dozen years. Our fiscal low point
occurred in 1996 when the General Fund balance hit a negative
$518 million. Through the efforts of the elected leaders and
the Control Board, we were able repeatedly to balance the
District's fiscal operations and the Control Board was
deactivated in 2001. Between 1996 and 2001, there was a $1
billion increase in the fund balance. But the real test for the
District was the challenge of sustaining fiscal stability in
the post-Control period. As you can see at the end of 2005, the
General Fund balance rose another $1 billion to $1.6 billion, a
turnaround of more than $2 billion.
This improvement was reflected in the credit ratings
assigned to the District by the major bond rating agencies. Our
bond ratings, which were junk bonds in the mid-1990's, were
upgraded to the current A+ category by all three rating
agencies simultaneously. Indeed, the turnaround by the District
was faster than any major city that experienced severe fiscal
distress including Philadelphia, Cleveland, Detroit, and New
York.
In addition, our income tax bonds--issued for the first
time in March of this year--were assigned a rating of AAA, the
highest possible rating by Standard and Poor's, and AA by
Moody's and Fitch. I should note that the initial offering of
$800 million in income tax bonds has been nominated the ``deal
of the year'' by Bond Buyer magazine. This is a remarkable
achievement for a city that was in dire financial straits only
a dozen years ago.
Let me note here that the District and nearly every other
State and local government in the Nation have been profoundly
affected by financial problems because of the depth and
duration of this recession. What will distinguish the District
when we look back at this period is our absolute commitment to
balancing our budget. Mayor Fenty, Chairman Gray, and the
Council reacted quickly each time there was a revenue re-
estimate to close the budget gaps that were created by lower
forecasts.
I would now talk about budget autonomy. Under the current
law, all District spending is authorized by the Congress
through the Federal appropriation process irrespective of the
sources of the revenue.
In the District's 2010 proposed gross budget of $8.8
billion, about $6 billion or 68 percent comes from revenues
raised through local sources. Only $188 million in Federal
payments were specifically requested from Federal sources. The
balance is comprised of formula-based Federal grants which are
available to all jurisdictions nationwide.
I would argue that only Federal payments that are
specifically and uniquely earmarked for the District should be
appropriated by the Congress.
If the District Council were able to set its own schedule
to enact the budget, the Mayor and the legislature could always
rely upon revenue estimates based on more current data.
Currently, the budgets are based in large part on revenue
estimates completed in February, some 7 months before the start
of the new fiscal year in October and a total of 20 months
before the end of the fiscal year. The District does not get
actual data on how accurate these revenue estimates are and
whether budget expenditures are fully covered until after the
end of the fiscal year, almost 2 years later than the budget
estimates that were provided at the beginning.
In summary, the District's leadership has the will and the
necessary resources to make informed decisions and the District
has a proven record of functioning in a fiscally responsible
manner.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my remarks. I will be
delighted to answer any questions you may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gandhi follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7789.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7789.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7789.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7789.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7789.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7789.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7789.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7789.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7789.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7789.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7789.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7789.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7789.038
Mr. Lynch. Thank you, sir. Ms. Rivlin, you are now
recognized for 5 minutes for an opening statement.
STATEMENT OF ALICE M. RIVLIN
Ms. Rivlin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee. Thank you for holding this hearing.
I am happy to be here to discuss greater autonomy for the
District of Columbia. I strongly support both the bills before
you but I will confine my remarks to budget autonomy.
I believe that greater autonomy for the District of
Columbia is a test of the seriousness of Congress's commitment
to democracy. The United States is justifiably proud of our
democratic tradition. We send our finest young men and women to
faraway places to fight and die for democratic ideals. Our
national leaders advocate democracy around the world. But right
here at home, Congress apparently doubts that the citizens of
the District of Columbia can be trusted to elect leaders who
will make wise decisions about local policy and even about how
to spend our own locally collected tax revenue. When Congress
passed the Home Rule Act in 1973, it retained ultimate control
over D.C. legislation, budgeting, and borrowing.
At that time, congressional skepticism was understandable.
The citizens of the District had been ruled like colonial
subjects for a long time and had no experience with electoral
politics or self government. And the inexperience showed when
the city faced fiscal crisis in 1995. And I believe that the
Congress, working with the Clinton administration, took the
necessary and appropriate action when it created the D.C.
Financial Resources Management and Assistance Authority--that
was its real name--better known as the Control Board. That same
legislation created an independent office of the chief
financial officer, a much needed contribution to strengthening
fiscal oversight in the District. As the CFO has said, Control
Board actions, supported by the City Council combined with an
improving economy, turned the District's budget outlook from
dismal to positive in a very short time.
Young democracies learn from their mistakes and the
District of Columbia government has amply demonstrated in
recent years that it learned from the experience of the 1990's
and is able to manage its own resources responsibly. It has
balanced its budget every year since the control period ended
and earned clean audits, albeit with some expressions of
concern from the auditors from time to time. It has built up a
large fund balance and significant cash reserve. Growing Wall
Street respect for the District's financial management has been
reflected in increasingly favorable ratings for its general
obligation bonds and a AAA rating for its recent income tax-
backed bond issue, as the CFO has noted.
Now is the time for Congress to show its commitment to
democratic government by trusting the citizens of the District
of Columbia through their elected officials to handle their own
fiscal affairs without interference or delay from Congress. In
fact, in recent years Congress has interfered far less than it
used to in the District's budget and tried to accommodate the
District's needs by keeping District appropriations from
getting caught in lengthy disputes over Federal spending bills
that drag on long after the budget year has begun. This
confidence is reassuring but it should be reflected in law.
If H.R. 1045, the District of Columbia Budget Autonomy Act
of 2009, were enacted, District officials could design their
own process for coming to budget decisions. Once a budget
reflecting spending out of its own revenues was passed by the
Council and signed by the Mayor, it could not be altered by
Congress or delayed by the congressional appropriations
process. Budget autonomy for the District is a win-win for the
District and the Federal Government as well a demonstration of
national confidence in the democratic process.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Rivlin follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7789.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7789.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7789.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7789.042
Mr. Lynch. Thank you. Mr. Smith, welcome. You are now
recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF WALTER SMITH
Mr. Smith. Good morning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is an
honor for me to appear before this distinguished panel. It is
also an honor for me to be a member of this distinguished panel
this morning. I am from D.C. Appleseed. We are a nonprofit
organization that tries to address the issues facing citizens
of the District, and one of the issues that has always faced
citizens of the District was striving toward getting the same
kind of full democracy that other citizens of this country
have. These two bills are an important step in achieving that
greater democracy.
The bill that I want to talk about is the legislative
autonomy bill. It seems to me that bill is the right thing to
do for three reasons. First of all, it is a fair and sensible
thing to do and it is a practical thing to do. Second, it is
completely consistent with what the Congress did in the Home
Rule Act. And third, it is completely consistent with the
District Clause authority that the Congress has and will retain
if this bill is passed.
What makes it such a practical thing to do is that the
Congress has not used this layover authority once in almost 20
years. It has only used it three times since the Home Rule Act
was passed. Congress has found other means and methods to
review actions by the D.C. Council. And yet, as Chairman Gray
pointed out, the Council has to continue to bombard you and
members of your staff with pieces of legislation, the majority
of which are designed to address the fact that they have to
have emergency bills and temporary bills to be a gap-filler.
In fact, the numbers are actually staggering. Since Home
Rule, 4,400 pieces of legislation have been passed. They are
sent to 11 different places upon the Hill, which means almost
48,000 pieces are coming up here. As Mr. Cummings pointed out,
this avalanche of documents is unnecessarily burdensome to the
Congress. Presumably Members of Congress and their staff are
looking at these pieces as they come up to no effect at all.
As the Home Rule Act itself said when passed, the purpose
of the Home Rule Act was to grant to the inhabitants of the
District of Columbia powers of local self government and to
relieve Congress of the burden of legislating upon essentially
local District matters. This bill advances that very important
purpose of the Home Rule Act.
The other important point to make is that even if you
remove the layover provision, you retain the full authority and
responsibility under the District Clause to review and revise
any legislation as you choose, as the Home Rule Act otherwise
points out. But it is important to remember, and I urge upon
you what the Framers had in mind when they first adopted the
District Clause: It was to protect the Federal Government's
interest in the national capital. The purpose was not to
entrust to the national legislature the burden and the
responsibility of legislating upon local matters.
I would just urge upon you, if you ever want to read what
the Framers had in mind, it is contained in Federalist No. 43,
which James Madison wrote. Let me just quote what I think is
the most important part of that Federalist No. 43 for purposes
of the legislative autonomy bill before you today. He said,
``Residents of the District,'' this has to do with ceding land
for purposes of founding the Nation's Capital. He said
residents of the Nation's Capital, ``will find sufficient
inducements of interest to become willing partners of the
session, because a municipal legislature for local purposes,
derived from their own sufferages, will, of course, be allowed
them.''
Mr. Madison was recognizing that the District Clause was
designed to protect Federal interests, not to take away from
the citizens who lived in what would become the Nation's
Capital the right to have their own self government and to
decide local issues for their own municipal legislature.
So I applaud Ms. Norton and the supporters of this bill
because this bill takes a step--a practical, fair step--toward
achieving what James Madison was talking about so long ago.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7789.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7789.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7789.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7789.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7789.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7789.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7789.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7789.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7789.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7789.052
Mr. Lynch. Thank you. I now recognize myself for 5 minutes.
Mayor Fenty, Chairman Gray, I think you have all touched on
one common point, and especially having Dr. Ghandi and his
remarks. You spoke of the remaining safeguards and the various
mechanisms that the District has in place to ensure proper
financial management and integrity in the budget process.
However, I do want to point out that even absent the current
protocol for congressional review, many of the financial
benchmarks that Dr. Ghandi and others have referred to derive
directly from the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility
and Management Assistance Act of 1995, such as the
reinstitution of a control board. And there are other
constraints in the event the city might fail to meet its
financial obligations.
While I raise that concern, I acknowledge, as the Mayor has
pointed out, that 14 consecutive budgets have been balanced and
there is a substantial and admirable record of fiscal
responsibility. But I just want to be reassured here that, at
least in my reading of Ms. Holmes Norton's legislation, those
checks and balances would remain in place, those would continue
to be adhered to. I just want to make sure that we are on the
same page. Is that your understanding?
Mayor Fenty. Yes, Mr. Chairman. And I think it is important
to note that the people of the District of Columbia really
enthusiastically support the independent CFO, as we also
enthusiastically support something else created by the Control
Board which are the fiscal impact statements. No bill passed by
the Council of the District of Columbia can move forward even
for my signature unless the CFO has authorized that the dollars
are there to go along with the bill. So there are a lot of
local safeguards that will still remain in addition to the
Federal safeguards that Mr. Smith just talked about.
Mr. Lynch. All right.
Mr. Gray. Mr. Chairman. Chairman Lynch, that is the
understanding of the Council as well. And I think if you look
at the controls that exist, those that we have added, it is
really, I think, a picture of how a municipality ought to be
run in this instance. For example, just to echo what the Mayor
said and to build on that, the Council no longer permits a bill
even to be reported out of a committee until we have a fiscal
impact statement from the CFO indicating that we have the
financial wherewithal to be able to effectively implement that
legislation. There was a time when the Council permitted a bill
to get to second reading before the fiscal impact statement had
to be available. But we have eliminated that. And those are the
kind of controls that we continue to put in place because we
heartily respect the past and use that as an opportunity to
continue to build on our controls.
We, too, strongly support the independent CFO and work very
closely with them. I think that was never more evident within
the last year than when we had four instances where there were
revenue estimates that were lower than the previous one and we
all worked effectively together to create a balanced budget for
the District of Columbia, properly in the neighborhood of $600
or $700 million revenue estimates. But again, at the end of the
day, we had a balanced budget as a result of that.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Gray.
Mr. Ghandi. If I may comment on that, Mr. Chairman? I think
both the Mayor and the chairman have pointed out so well that
the institutions of the chief financial officer, the
independent CFO, have been very well placed now in the conduct
of the government. It has been institutionalized. Also the
various features of the CFO--the independence, the 5-year
balanced budget, making sure that for reoccurring expenditure
you have reoccurring source--all of that has been properly
implemented by the CFO. And a budget will not be forwarded to
the Congress or even to the Mayor and Council unless it is
properly balanced and certified so by the chief financial
officer.
I think the test of the whole office and CFO is in the
practice. In my 10 years as a CFO, most of those years post-
Control Board, I have been extremely gratified by the respect
that the Mayor and the chairman and the Council have shown to
the office of the CFO.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you. My time has expired. I now yield 5
minutes to the ranking member, Mr. Chaffetz of Utah.
Mr. Chaffetz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for
being here. I appreciate it. Our hope and interest is in what
is in the best interest of the District of Columbia and in the
United States of America. I happen to believe that a good
collaborative effort is one that our Framers had envisioned.
And that as you make the case that the city is working so well
and is financially prudent and has good budget stopgaps in
place and checks and balances, I can only wish the Federal
Government would have some of that same discipline before it
goes off and puts more and more literally trillions of dollars
on our kids' future on just the credit card. So I wish we had
some of the financial controls of discipline that are obviously
implemented at the city.
Mr. Chairman, let me ask you first, you said in your
testimony, ``The District has clearly demonstrated that we have
earned the right to budget autonomy.'' You obviously are making
the case that everything is going so well. At the same time you
also say that ``all other State governments in our Nation have
this flexibility.'' My concern is that the District of Columbia
is not a State. It is not a State and it is dealt with
differently. I guess I take issue with that characterization of
other States. And perhaps it was just a typo, but for those of
us that are concerned about that, I truly am concerned about
that.
If things are going so well, what sort of grade would you
give the Mayor?
Mr. Gray. Well the legislation is not about the Mayor's
performance but obviously we work well with the Mayor. Over the
last 3 years we have worked well to try to create a balanced
budget and I think the evidence is in the audits, the evidence
is in the fund balance that you see portrayed over there, it is
evident in how this jurisdiction has been run.
Mr. Chaffetz. I appreciate it. I have such little time. I
appreciate it. I guess what I was hoping to hear, and I did
hear, is the spirit of cooperation.
Mr. Gray. Exactly right. Cooperation.
Mr. Chaffetz. That same sort of cooperation I think can
happen between the city and the Congress. One of the statistics
that jumps out along the way is how infrequently the Congress
actually does inject itself into some very volatile issues. But
I do think it is that sort of check and balance within the
constitutional framework that is important to us going forward.
Mayor, if I can go to you because, again, my time is so
short? I want to talk for just a moment if I could about the
Opportunity Scholarship Program. Do you support the
reauthorization of the Opportunity Scholarship Program in the
District of Columbia, including entry for new students?
Mayor Fenty. As contained in the three sector approach
which has been a part of the submission from the President in
both the past administration and the current, yes.
Mr. Chaffetz. And I need to jump quickly. Taking that same
kind of concept of autonomy, one of the issues that has come up
is about the same sex marriage law. As you are here supporting
greater autonomy for the District of Columbia, would you extend
that principle to the local voters in the form of referendum on
same sex marriage law as has been done in 31 States?
Mayor Fenty. The short answer is no. The longer answer is I
believe the people of the District of Columbia have elected a
fabulous Council of the District of Columbia who has all the
tools necessary to make the type of decisions on what laws
should and should not be passed.
Mr. Chaffetz. Chairman, did you want to address that?
Mr. Gray. My answer is no as well, Congressman Chaffetz. We
were elected to represent the people. I think the Council of
the District of Columbia has done that extremely well. We
tackle very difficult issues every day. When you look at school
governance, that certainly was an issue.
Mr. Chaffetz. I want to stick to this issue.
Mr. Gray. Well, I am trying to give you an example of how
we have decided issues as a Council that I think are analogous.
I think school governance, building a----
Mr. Chaffetz. My time is so short. I am disappointed that
the people are not given an opportunity to vote on this issue.
And if there is confidence in the Council and others that this
would pass, then allow the vote. But I think we have seen in 31
States, again different than the District of Columbia, it has
passed 31 times in a row in opposition of the same-sex
marriage.
Last question. The administration is pushing to take over,
at least there is a suggestion that it should take over the
safety components dealing with mass transit, specifically like
the Metro and whatnot. What is your reaction to that? Should
that be something of greater autonomy to the city? And I
recognize it goes into other States and whatnot. But is the
administration moving in the right direction?
Mr. Gray. From what I understand, the administration is
looking at it on a national level. I have not done the proper
level of inquiry. Once we do, we would be glad to present you
with the full views of the local government.
Mr. Chaffetz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Lynch. I thank the gentleman. The Chair now recognizes
the gentle lady from the District of Columbia, Ms. Eleanor
Holmes Norton for 5 minutes.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me quickly ask Mr.
Gandhi this. For years, I believe you said--you noted this, of
course, this is a recession year--that the District had what I
recall was the greatest surplus in the United States; was that
the case? It is surplus, which, of course, it is now having to
use because of the recession. But is it not the case that for
many years the District surplus outranked that of any State in
the Union or any city?
Mr. Gandhi. We were among the States, or I should say
cities that have enjoyed substantial surpluses. Ms. Norton, I
was in Chicago just 2 weeks ago meeting with the chief
financial officers of other cities such as Chicago, Los
Angeles, New Orleans, Denver, etc. Of all those places, our
city has done extraordinarily well comparatively in terms of
our ability to enjoy the surpluses.
Ms. Norton. The notion that the District would and did pile
surpluses, did not spend it, and has fared better than many
cities during this recession is a source of pride to the city
and a pride in the work that all of you have done.
Chairman Gray, I know this is a ballpark number but given
how you have testified you have to jump through hoops just to
get legislation into effect until we say it is OK or take no
action, how much of your time, what ballpark figure of your
time is spent on passing redundant laws or seeing that laws do
not go out of effect while you are waiting for the Congress
layover period to recede?
Mr. Gray. Probably, Ms. Norton, in excess of 50 percent.
Ms. Norton. In excess of?
Mr. Gray. Of the time.
Ms. Norton. Of 50 percent, did you say?
Mr. Gray. Yes. As I indicated in my testimony, two-thirds
of the laws that we have passed since 1997 in the Council have
been laws that deal with emergencies and temporaries, all of
which is an artifact of this system that we operate under.
There is no question that some of those emergencies would have
to be adopted in any event because of the exigent need.
However, when you ferret out those that are associated with the
process that we have to operate under here with the Congress,
all the temporaries are associated with this process so it is
probably looking at two-thirds of the legislation being in that
category. Pulling out the legitimate emergencies that exist
within the city, it is probably 50 percent of our legislative
time.
Ms. Norton. So here we have half the Council's time spent
redundantly when--it is a big, complicated city--when it needs
to get to the business, and it does so very well. But I think
it makes the point about inefficiency.
My last question really goes to a point that is seldom
mentioned but it is really a cardinal point in all of this. I
mentioned it in passing, the June 30th fiscal year. I would
like the comments of the panel on this. Perhaps I will use an
example. Mayor Fenty has done something very important in the
District of Columbia, with the cooperation of Chairman Gray who
deserves a lot of credit for hurrying the whole Council to do
what very few States and cities have done, to say Mayor Fenty,
you are in charge of the schools of the District of Columbia.
They have given him everything except the ability to make sure
schools have the same efficient start time. Of course he
started them on time as every other jurisdiction, our neighbors
in Virginia, for example, ready to go July 1st unless something
untold happens.
I would like you to describe using the schools perhaps as
an example, perhaps you have other examples--this is for anyone
on the panel, Mr. Smith is a former corporation counsel which
we now call Attorney General; Ms. Rivlin and Mr. Gandhi are
equally familiar with this--but I would like to know what
difference it would make, what this bill would mean, for
example, if you could decide--of course you might decide
whatever--but you could decide that instead of September 30th
when school has already started as the beginning of your fiscal
year, that, for example, like most States July 1st could be the
beginning of your fiscal year. I would like you to describe
what that would mean as far as all of you are concerned.
Mayor Fenty. Two quick things, Congresswoman. This year
after the budget was passed, just because of the revenue
forecast, the school system already was looking at less revenue
of about $20 million going into the new school year. If the
budget projections are closer to the time it is passed, you are
not going to have that type of deficit. On a global
perspective, we have already had, I think, two or three
meetings with all of our cabinet heads--and it is only
November--in preparation for the budget that will not be passed
and ready until next October 1st. So we are almost meeting to
prepare for next year's budget before the current year's budget
is even passed.
Ms. Norton. Chairman Gray.
Mr. Gray. I think for the Council, I think for the public
schools, public education is an excellent example because what
we have now is a situation in which the planning for a
particular school year spans 2 fiscal years. We have part of
that budget that begins--the latter part, if you will--in the
current year, for example, and spans the period from August
until the end of September. Then we have the other part of the
school year in the next fiscal year. It makes for very
difficult planning. And the schools, again, are an excellent
example. If we could change the fiscal year to July 1st, the
entire school year would be included in one fiscal year.
Mr. Gandhi. If I might echo that comment? I would agree
about the schools. Further, the fundamental problem that we
face here is that we provide a revenue estimate to the Mayor
and the Council in February. The budget is submitted to the
Hill in June. The Congress does not act until October 1st in
terms of its continuing resolution if there were no agreement.
So there is a long delay between when we provide revenue
estimates and when the budget is enacted. And the local
government, we do not have a chance to adjust, to readjust our
budgeting in light of changing financial conditions.
Ms. Rivlin. I have very little to add to this except to
stress that all agencies are inconvenienced by this long delay.
But it is the schools, DCPS and the charter schools and the
universities that have to get started without knowing exactly
what the budget is going to be.
Mr. Smith. The only thing I would add, Ms. Norton, is that
having tried to run a District agency when I was at Corporation
Council's Office, not knowing what you can do and how much you
can spend and when puts significant limitations on efficiency
within the District.
Mr. Lynch. OK, thank you. The gentle lady's time has
expired. I yield myself just 30 seconds.
My own experience with budgeting is that your revenue
projections drive your budget. What you are being forced to do
is to come up with a budget prior to getting your revenue
projections. You have a considerable amount of lag time here
where over the course of time those projections that you do
have can be completely destroyed by the passage of time. So
there are a couple of things going on there that put you at a
severe disadvantage. I understand that.
The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from--I am sorry, I
did not see Mr. Bilbray come in. I recognize Mr. Bilbray, the
gentleman from California, for 5 minutes. Welcome.
Mr. Bilbray. If I want to be treated like this, I can go
home Mr. Chairman.
First of all, let me clarify. Mr. Mayor and Mr. Chairman, I
was a mayor in my 20's in a young, small little working class
community on the border in California. I also served, like the
gentleman from Virginia, as the chairman of a county of 3
million.
This is my chance to say something about this. I was
absolutely appalled when I came here in the 1990's and saw what
appeared to be the gross abuses of local control by the local
community. Freeways were not allowed to go through because of
Ward politics. Maybe it is because I am a Californian that I
can't comprehend the ability of politics to stop a freeway dead
in its tracks, not just once but twice. Though, I have seen it
happen.
The other thing I have just got to tell you is, Mr. Smith,
that this District was created for a special reason. This
little area between the Anacostia and the Potomac called Turkey
Buzzard Point was chosen to be a no man's land from political
influences from the outside or from within, much like we do
with our military reservations, too.
But I see the effect of the lack of appropriate control of
the jurisdiction. I have staffers who resign and go home
because they have been attacked, they have been threatened, or
they have almost been murdered.
I am constantly reminded as a former local government
official that the Constitution does give us the ability to
authorize jurisdiction but not responsibility. The Constitution
still lays that right in our lap. This is one of those things
that Congress can't say is out of its jurisdiction. The big
difference is that the same Constitution that gives States that
jurisdiction--and the States are the ones that give cities
their local control, not the Constitution. The Constitution
does not take away that local control from other cities. It did
in this one, in this city.
So there is an issue here of the appropriateness of
authorizing jurisdiction and thinking we can walk away from the
ultimate responsibility of young ladies being attacked, roads
not being completed, the congestion, and everything else that
is our responsibility.
I would just like to ask this down the line. Mr. Gandhi,
you seem to appear to have done great things working with the
local government when it comes to the budget process. I want to
give credit on that. After all of that trashing, I want to say
you guys have come a long way in a lot of ways. I still don't
understand why you put traffic lights in traffic circles. It
violates every traffic engineering thing I have learned, but
that is a different issue. Why would we walk away from a
successful program? Are we so sure that we will never go back
to where we were? Your success is something I think we should
build on and not abandon.
Mr. Gandhi. Sir, I would give great credit to the Mayor,
the chairman, and the Council. They are the elected leaders and
they do the heavy lifting. Of course, there are institutions of
an independent chief financial officer and all these good ideas
have been built into that. But at the end of the day, it is the
elected leaders who deserve a great deal of credit.
I think all we are talking about and all I am going to
comment about is the budget autonomy. That will make things
easier for them, for me, and for the District's citizens. So I
think you want to keep that in proper perspective, sir.
Mr. Bilbray. Mayor, I understand the culture of politics in
Washington that you inherited. What I feel is the undue
influence of public employees where basically government exists
for employees and not for serving the public and everything
else. I appreciate you have made some big changes there.
But the concept, as a Californian, of not allowing voters
to vote specifically on vary controversial issues is something
that as a Californian, I don't accept. We specifically allow
overriding of legislative intent. How do I go back and say to
my constituents that as the State legislature of the city, let
us just say it that way, I deny them the constitutional rights
that we have in California of direct oversight on these very
controversial issues?
Mayor Fenty. Well, California is very unique when it comes
to the referendum process. I think what you can say is that the
people of the District of Columbia, just like the other 50
independent jurisdictions in this country, have a different set
of laws. Our laws have been made for some time and they work a
certain way.
If you look into our referendum and initiative processes, I
think there is ample opportunity for citizens to actually take
things to the ballot. There is also just as much opportunity
for the Council of the District of Columbia to pass laws. I
think it works. It is a very healthy balance in my opinion.
That doesn't mean that what happens in California or in any
other jurisdiction isn't healthy as well. It is up to the
particular State.
Let me just say one other thing. This is a very narrow law,
as Dr. Gandhi just said. What we think we have proposed in
support of Congresswoman Norton's law is that all of the fiscal
restraints, fiscal safeguards, both Federal and local will be
protected. But by passing this law what you will allow is my
administration and successive administrations to run the
government better while maintaining all of the Federal and
local fiscal restraints that currently exist.
Mr. Bilbray. I appreciate that. Just in closing, I
appreciate the fact that the District is defending a republican
form of government as opposed to a democratic initiative
process. That constitutionality was a big issue in California,
the fact that the Constitution does defend the republican form
of government as opposed to democratic direct governance.
I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Lynch. I thank the gentleman. The Chair recognizes Mr.
Connolly, the gentleman from Virginia, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Connolly. I thank the chairman and I thank my colleague
from Ohio for yielding.
By the way, I appreciate what my friend from California
said but it is a very arguable point how well recall
referendums and initiatives have worked in California. One
wants to read a cogent critique of that. David Broder of the
Washington Post wrote a book a few years ago that really lays
out how special interest influences essentially coopted what
was once seen as a reform at the turn of the 20th century. So
there is another side to that.
Mr. Smith, you are an attorney. You are familiar with the
provision in the U.S. Constitution granting Congress in Article
1, Section 8, Clause 17 exclusive legislation in all cases
whatsoever pertaining to the District of Columbia?
Mr. Smith. I am, yes.
Mr. Connolly. When that provision was written in 1787, how
many people lived in the District of Columbia?
Mr. Smith. Very few.
Mr. Connolly. In 1800 when the President of the United
States, John Adams, was the first occupant to move into the
White House, do you know how many people lived in the District
of Columbia?
Mr. Smith. It was still very few.
Mr. Connolly. When the writers of the U.S. Constitution
wrote this provision, is there any evidence that they
envisioned the District of Columbia would eventually evolve
into a vibrant metropolis with hundreds of thousands of
residents?
Mr. Smith. They were a prescient group but I doubt if they
saw all of that, Mr. Congressman.
Mr. Connolly. Anybody else on the panel want to take a stab
at that one?
[No response.]
Mr. Connolly. Given that fact, is there any other city you
can think of, Chairman Gray, where Congress interprets this and
exercises the kind of oversight and control we do in the
District of Columbia? For example, is there any other city in
the United States where we condition voting representation to
the competence of the local government?
Mr. Gray. I am not aware of any, Congressman.
Mr. Connolly. Is there any city or county you can think of
where we condition voting representation here in the U.S.
Congress on the quality and performance of the school system?
Mr. Gray. Not to my knowledge.
Mr. Connolly. Is there any city or county you can think of
in the United States that, again, where we condition voting
representation here in the U.S. Congress based on how high or
low the crime rate might be?
Mr. Gray. Not to my knowledge.
Mr. Connolly. Disfunctionality or functionality of various
municipal agencies?
Mr. Gray. No.
Mr. Connolly. Ability to balance a budget?
Mr. Gray. No.
Mr. Connolly. Really? Now, I would be interested in your
thoughts and yours, Mayor Fenty. What would be the logic of
this Congress using this clause of the Constitution, which
clearly was intended for a Federal enclave that met
periodically during the year and then pretty much shut down? It
was never envisioned that D.C. would become a city with
hundreds of thousands of citizens and then be denied the
franchise, at least not as I read the Constitution or the
history of the writing of the Constitution. What is your view
about the exercise of this provision, our oversight
responsibilities, and our conditionality of voting
representation in the Congress based on that?
Mr. Gray. I think it is clear to us that we have 600,000
people who live in the District of Columbia who are
disenfranchised. We have worked hard to try to get a vote for
our Representative in this Congress, Ms. Norton. This issue
around budget autonomy and legislative autonomy I think echo
the point.
We pay Federal taxes just like everyone else. We pay $3.5
billion to $3.6 billion a year. Our sons and daughters and our
family members go off to fight wars like everyone else. We do
the same things that other citizens of the United States do,
yet we do not enjoy the same rights, and that is the right of
self determination. Frankly, being able to make decisions about
our budget and being able to make decisions about our
legislation, especially to move this city forward in a timely
fashion, are part of full citizenship in this Nation.
Frankly, if we had not crafted an emergency and temporary
legislative process, we would have had experiences in the
District of Columbia that would have slowed down the ability to
make decisions which probably would have been criticized by
this Congress and others because of our inability to move. Yet
it is the process that we have been required to operate under
that would have delayed those decisions that needed to be made,
decisions that we knew needed to be made, Mr. Connolly.
Mr. Connolly. An inability, if I can interject, created or
generated by Congress because of our dithering over our
oversight responsibilities. Is that correct?
Mr. Gray. You said it very well.
Mr. Connolly. Mr. Chairman, my time is up. But as a
courtesy, if you would not object, I want to give the Mayor the
opportunity to comment similarly.
Mayor Fenty. Well again, just to sum up, Congressman, I
think there are people who would take your view that the ``no
taxation without representation'' clause of the Constitution is
the one that needs to be paid more attention to and used to
give us our full voting rights and representation. Those are
issues for probably a broader debate on a different day.
Today, in focusing on the clause that gives Congress
jurisdiction over the District of Columbia, it seems that the
law that has been crafted by Congresswoman Norton both gives
the local officials the ability to spend our dollars more
wisely and efficiently but doesn't abridge that particular
clause. So it seems like what you rarely get in legislatures,
having served on one for 6 years, is a win-win.
Mr. Connolly. I thank you, and I thank the Chair.
Mr. Lynch. I thank the gentleman. The Chair now recognizes
the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Kucinich, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Kucinich. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to
welcome the witnesses. I speak in support of my colleague, Ms.
Holmes Norton, for her commitment to equality in the District
of Columbia.
In some ways it seems like this discussion is almost
surreal in that we could have a city in America that is still
struggling for self determination while, as Ms. Rivlin stated
in her testimony, we want to export democracy all over the
world. Something about this really doesn't compute.
We understand what the Constitution says. Ms. Holmes Norton
has come up with, I think, a reasonable approach that would
modify the cumbersome congressional oversight review process.
It is a very reasonable approach that you have taken, Ms.
Holmes Norton. And I think that the Congress certainly should
be supportive of that.
But when you look at it in a broader context, it is really
ridiculous that the District of Columbia doesn't have true
autonomy. Is someone afraid they are going to take over the
United States of America? It almost seems like a riff on
Leonard Wibberley's ``A Mouse That Roared''--declare war on the
United States and be pacified and wealthy beyond your wildest
dreams. I don't think that is going to be what the District of
Columbia is about as it moves toward greater autonomy.
We need to, as my colleague, Mr. Connolly, has suggested,
look at the historical context here and look at the context of
our Constitution. If there was ever a call for changing the
Constitution and updating it, it is our relationship with the
District of Columbia.
We show a capacity for evolution in this Nation. There was
a time when people who didn't own property could not vote, a
time when women couldn't vote, a time when people of color
couldn't vote, and a time when people under 21 could not vote.
America has seen this capacity for evolution. So we change the
Constitution. Each time we understood. But because of the
popular support for those changes, it was a little bit easier.
D.C. is here as an advocate on behalf of the people in the
District. We need to help people all over America understand
that this truly and should be a concern of all Americans. We
shouldn't take out of our understanding the potential to change
the Constitution in this regard.
And while Ms. Holmes Norton certainly has been peerless in
her advocacy of equality for the District of Columbia, it is
important for your colleagues, Ms. Holmes Norton, to be heard
from and to support your efforts in the boldest way possible.
Because this really is a fundamental question: Whether you have
the right for self governance.
As a former mayor, I understand how important it is to be
able to make decisions without having other people continue to
try to re-cut your decisions. The essence of home rule in our
city in Cleveland, home rule is modeled after the Federal plan
of Government, with the mayor being the chief executive and
three branches of government. The council in Cleveland is a co-
equal branch of government, but the mayor is the chief
executive. That is the way to make government work for people.
There is one correction I want to add to what Ms. Rivlin
said. Cleveland's financial crisis in 1978 was a manufactured
one where the banks tried to dictate to the city the sale of a
municipal electric system as a precondition for the city
getting credit. I mention that because that is a home rule
issue, too, whether the city had the right to make its own
decision to keep an electric system without banks saying you
better get rid of that system or we are going to not give you
credit.
So the principle of home rule is joined to democratic
theory. It is joined to the spirit and letter of our
Constitution. Just because we haven't yet worked out that one
provision doesn't mean that we can't find a way, with the
wisdom of Ms. Holmes Norton, to adapt to where we are right
now, give the District some additional flexibility, and then at
the same time work with those of like mind who see that we
really need to change the Constitution to make the District of
Columbia a place that people can truly call their own through
being able to have direct election of officials at every level.
So I thank you, Mayor Fenty, for the work that you do, and
all members of the panel for their forthright presentation of
the needs of the people of the District. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you. Let me just ask, I don't know if
everybody has more questions, but I have one.
There is a certain aspect of this that Congress has a
Constitutional responsibility. We are not suggesting abdicating
that responsibility. What we are suggesting here, I think, is
that in many cases Congress delegates the authority that is
given to us through the Constitution. The question here that we
are grappling with, and with which Ms. Eleanor Holmes Norton
has grappled most intently, is that the way in which we
delegate that responsibility has a whole lot to do with how
efficiently that authority is implemented.
We have done it in a way, I think, so far. It was improved
upon back in 1973 with the Home Rule piece. But I think there
are still some encumbrances on the city government in trying to
do the job that we hope you would do. It is most clearly
illustrated, I think, in the budget process where we ask you to
comply with a budget requirement in a way that is virtually
impossible. So I certainly understand the budgetary autonomy
piece of this and how that could be worked out. I can envision
a solution there.
The one reservation I have is over issues that are
inherently driven by Congress's presence here in the capital.
That is the security of the District because of what we bring.
We made you a target on 9/11. But for the fact that Congress
and the seat of national Government is here, you would not have
been a target. So there is a heightened level of security that
is necessary because Congress is present here. I think that we
need to make sure that job gets done in a very businesslike and
appropriate fashion. We have great reservations, I should say
on behalf of Congress, about delegating that authority to the
degree that we don't have immediate responsibility and control.
The other piece, obviously, is I think up to 40 percent of
the real property in the District is controlled by the Federal
Government as part of our ability to do our jobs that are
Federal. Again, for that 40 percent of the property that is
covered by the Federal Government, we need to have that same
type of immediate impact through Congress's decisions.
Outside of those two very real and different and immediate
needs, Mayor, how do you think we can work this out in terms of
giving you that flexibility that you need but keeping close for
Congress our ability to impact those things that are inherently
Federal in conducting our day-to-day business?
Mayor Fenty. That is a great question, Mr. Chairman. From
the way I read the legislation, I do not see how the laws that
are already passed in the Council's normal course of business--
and I think it has been put on the record that they go through
at almost 100 percent approval by the U.S. Congress--would
change anything about the relationship between the Federal
Government and the local government, expressly when it doesn't
change the District laws which give the Congress the power to
come back in at any point and make a statement about a
particular law or particular budget that we pass. It is really
just about the operations and efficiency of government.
I would put on the record that 1 day we will have the
bigger discussion about whether the District of Columbia gets
full sovereignty and what you do with the more Federal parts of
the government. But I don't think this legislation gets
anywhere close to that since it merely just talks about the
process and the time by which our laws become final.
I would say that both in the past administration and in the
current one, whether it is an inauguration or whether it is the
many and varied and myriad threats that do come upon the city
that we all call home, there is unbelievable cooperation
between our first responders and the Homeland Security agencies
and Federal law enforcement where you all have the privilege of
overseeing their budgets.
No matter what our structure, and certainly with the
passage of this law, there has to be good management. The city
is well prepared and I think the Federal Government is as well
to continue that.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, do you want to comment
on that?
Mr. Gray. Just to echo what has been a theme throughout
this hearing, that is there is nothing about this legislation
that changes Article 1, Section 8. That continues to vest in
this Congress the authority to intervene where it may consider
it appropriate to intervene. It simply gives us the ability to
more flexibly and rapidly manage our affairs in the District of
Columbia, especially around the passage of legislation and
especially around the issue of budget.
In my testimony I cited an example, and I chose it in
particular, that it took 9 months for the District of Columbia
to be able to change the term ``handicap'' to ``disability'' in
our laws because of the requirement for congressional review. I
can't imagine that anybody in the Congress would, first of all,
object to such a change because it is far more dignified, or
even more importantly, want to be involved in that kind of
change at the local level in the District of Columbia.
I go back also, Mr. Chairman, to the reality that in 35
years we have had these disapproval resolutions used three
times, the last time 19 years ago. I think that is a prima
facie case for the ability of this city firstly, to manage
itself, especially through difficult times; and second, the
collaborative relationship that we have crafted with this
Congress.
Mr. Lynch. I thank you. The Chair now recognizes the
gentleman from Utah, Mr. Chaffetz, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Chaffetz. Thank you. Again, I appreciate everybody and
their dialog. I think this is a healthy part of the process. I
would hate to think that you would like to come here less
often. [Laughter.]
I do believe that the District of Columbia holds a special
place in the hearts and minds of all the American people. There
is only one capital of the United States of America. Our
Constitution recognizes that.
I think the gentleman from Ohio, a good friend, brings up
an important point. If there is a discussion or an effort to
change the Constitution, perhaps that is a separate discussion.
I happen to disagree with it. I think it is divinely inspired.
I think it says literally what it means. But as he brought up
at the end of his comments an effort to perhaps change the
Constitution, maybe we ought to have that discussion. It is
certainly his right and prerogative to bring that up. I would
oppose that just at first blush.
But until it is changed, I have a hard time with the
direction that these two pieces of legislation go. I have the
greatest respect for what you do and how you do it and what the
Representative brings to the table and her perspective. I have
nothing but the utmost respect. But at the same time, those of
us that believe wholeheartedly in the Constitution literally as
it says, shouldn't be met with the vehemence that you sometimes
get in standing tall on the Constitution.
I would also take exception to the characterization that
the budget process is some impossible feat given that chart
that you are so willingly able to put up there. In fact, as I
look back over the history--and I am still studying it and
continuing to understand it--it was actually an enactment of
Congress that created the independent CFO position that helped
change the direction and consequently created a positive
result.
At the same time, there have been a host of challenges.
There have been a number of things where maybe the changing of
the word is something just innocuous and we don't need to deal
with that. But I do believe that there is a role and
responsibility for Congress to help make that determination
because there have been very contentious subjects such as
needle exchange, the second amendment issues, the Hyde
amendment, budget scandals, and all sorts of things that have
happened. You could argue that those would happen in other
cities, too. But this is the unique provision set up by our
Founders in our Constitution.
I don't know if you would like to address that. It is not a
direct question but it is just an approach. Mayor, I will give
you the first stab at this. But that is where we are coming
from, or at least where I am coming from.
I want to applaud you for the success you have had but I
want to hold your feet to the fire for the things that aren't
going well. And that system of checks and balances and
accountability and having to come up here to the Hill is a very
healthy process. Yes, it is different than every other city in
the United States of America. That is OK. That is good. That is
the way our framers set it up.
Mayor Fenty. Well, I think in any legislative debate there
comes a point where you agree to disagree. I actually don't
think we are at that point with this bill. I think if you are a
Member of Congress and you have a particular personal position
that is different than what has been voted out by the Council
of the District of Columbia, after the passage of these two
bills, it seems like you still have a vehicle to make your
personal opinion known and to introduce some type of amendment.
I think what this bill speaks to is more the running of the
government. I think the case has been put there just by the
sheer numbers of bills that come through here that don't raise
any concerns for you. Having those go through an additional 6
to 9 months, it does cost the District of Columbia time,
energy, and resources. Could we manage our affairs otherwise?
Sure. We are not going to say that we can't. But could we
manage them better if the law were passed? I think we have put
a good case before you that we could.
Mr. Chaffetz. Mr. Chairman, my time has expired. I
appreciate those comments. I still think we have the very best
form of government and I think that check and balance, as
expensive as it may be in dollars and time, is a worthwhile
process. With that, I yield back my overtime. Thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
Mr. Lynch. Thank the gentleman. I want to recognize the
gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Clay, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Clay. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
Mrs. Norton. Could I ask the gentleman to yield? Could I
ask my good friend, the gentleman from Missouri, if he would
yield for a moment. I am due in the Senate at 12.
Mr. Clay. Oh, sure.
Mrs. Norton. I don't want to ask a question. I just want to
say for the record because of Mr. Chaffetz's concern that even
with needle exchange, which has cost lives and serious illness
in the District of Columbia, all the plenary power of the
Congress would remain to interfere with or, in your view,
correct what the District is doing. And the proof of that is
this Congress has already delegated partial home rule, home
rule on everything but budget and legislation finality. So just
do what you already have done in 1973.
The only real concern, it seems to me, has been raised by
the chairman. Is there any interference with the national
Government's concern? That is a legitimate concern, Mr.
Chairman. Of the three times in which the District laws have
used the disapproval resolution, two of the three had to do
with mistakes by the District. It had passed laws that
interfered with the Federal presence.
The budget and legislative autonomy bills before us deal
with local laws, having nothing whatsoever to do with national
concerns. Even so, you could intervene to overturn any of those
laws. The only difference is the inconvenience of having us
wait for months for our budget and months for our bills would
no longer be there. You would have to move a bit more quickly.
The chairman mentioned property in the District of
Columbia, the Federal property. This property remains the sole
jurisdiction and under the sole control of the Government.
Finally, as a Member of the Homeland Security Committee,
the chairman has raised an important point. What about the
security of the Nation's Capital? For 10 years we have
operated, almost 10 years now since 9/11, under a regime of
partnership with the Federal Government to protect the security
of the Nation's Capital. The truth is, Mr. Chairman, that they
can't do it without our police force and without our resources.
So they are joined at the hip when it comes to homeland
security.
And let us remember Federal supremacy. Even the D.C.
National Guard is not controlled by the Mayor, as in other
States. The D.C. National Guard is under the direct control
already, and always Federalized, of the Federal Government. So
Congress has taken care of its own security. And should there
be any problem, under its plenary authority it could simply
take over the whole city for security reasons. So thank you for
raising that, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Lynch. I thank the gentle lady. Mr. Mayor, I know you
had a time constraint and I don't want to delay you any
further. So if you need to scoot, you can. I thank you very
much for your time.
Mr. Clay. Mr. Chairman, I did have some questions.
Mr. Lynch. No, no. It is just the Mayor had a conflict and
I am just giving him the courtesy of departing if he has to. I
now recognize the gentleman from California.
Mr. Bilbray. I would just like to give the Mayor the chance
to clarify because I don't think he wants to leave here leaving
the impression of a statement he made. I think he misspoke and
you don't want to read about it later. You made a reference to
``no taxation without representation'' being in the
Constitution. Do you want to clarify that you did not mean that
clause is in the Constitution?
Mayor Fenty. Well, as you are well aware, Congressman, our
country was founded upon the principle that citizens of the
country would not be taxed without having----
Mr. Bilbray. Mr. Mayor, I just wanted you to clarify the
record that you didn't mean the Constitution.
Mayor Fenty. Point well taken.
Mr. Bilbray. You meant it was basically a----
Mayor Fenty. Point well-taken.
Mr. Bilbray. OK. Thank you. I just wanted to make sure we
get on that so you don't----
Mr. Lynch. The gentleman is still recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Bilbray. Thank you. I appreciate that.
Mr. Chairman, it is too bad my colleague from Fairfax isn't
here because he was talking about what cities don't get to have
self governance. Quantico is one of them because it is on a
Federal reservation. For a Virginian to forget that there are
cities that are actually encompassed in Federal jurisdictions
that we sort of drive by every day and don't think about the
fact the citizens of Quantico don't elect a mayor, don't have
direct representation because the Federal Government preempts
it.
I have a question, Mayor, regarding the issue of the
scholarship program in D.C. Let me tell you, this is near and
dear, especially in a city like this. Should the program allow
new students into the program at the present and the future as
we have in the past?
Mayor Fenty. Yes. Our administration supports both the
three sector approach and then we have a statement which has
been crafted which would allow the continued operations of the
program and the same numbers of people in the program. There
are some people who would want less, some people who would want
more. You could classify that as more kids into the program
because they are new kids or you could just classify it as the
same number of slots. We have supported the same number of
slots.
Mr. Bilbray. So in other words, you support maintaining
this into the foreseeable future where if you don't allow new
kids in, you are basically designing the demise of the option
for the inner city?
Mayor Fenty. No. That would be one of the extremes. Our
administration has adopted a position that is a little bit more
in the middle which would support the same number of slots.
That would allow new kids in to a certain degree but not any
growth in the program.
The quick explanation is the Chancellor believes that
within a short period of time, probably more in the 5 or 6 year
range, we will have our school system at a level that it will
be a much more solid option for all the kids in the city.
Mr. Bilbray. Mr. Mayor, that is very delicate for me. I
owned a place in D.C. and, sadly, my wife was emphatic that we
leave the District because of the lack of educational
opportunities here.
The other issue that is kind of interesting in this city is
that I don't own a place here but I have a friend like Bob
Filner where the District now has created a tax penalty for
people that are required by Federal law not to be residents of
D.C. but live here and work here. The District is taxing them
basically because they are not residents, i.e, Members of
Congress. We legally cannot be a resident, a voting resident in
D.C. But Bob's tax is more than his partner's because he is a
Congressman and not allowed to do that under Federal law. Has
anybody even discussed that catch-22? I know it is small, but
this is the kind of situation that exists in a Federal city--
the Nation's Capital--that doesn't exist in other cities.
Mayor Fenty. If I have been briefed on that, I don't
recall. I yield to Dr. Gandhi.
Let me just say in reference to the schools as I yield. As
we both support the type of school reform that Chancellor Rhee
has been pushing over the past 2 years, I do believe that the
bill before us will allow her to move even faster by having a
greater understanding of what her ability to spend dollars is.
Dr. Gandhi, I don't know if you have any information about
the bill.
Mr. Gandhi. I do, Mr. Mayor. I think the Mayor spoke quite
well on that.
Mr. Bilbray. OK. I would just like to give him a choice
rather than having to pack up and leave like a lot of people
have done, sadly. And a lot of people who don't have the
financial ability to pack up and leave like I did and give my
children those options, those that are in D.C. that don't have
that financial ability should be able to have the same
opportunities that my children had even though their parents
don't make the money that a Congressman makes. I appreciate
your chance.
Mr. Lynch. I thank the gentleman. I now recognize the
distinguished gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Clay, for 5 minutes.
Mr. Clay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me also point out to
my friend from California that it was discovered that some of
our colleagues who own residences in the District of Columbia
were also taking homestead credits. So just to let him know
that it cuts both ways.
Let me ask Dr. Gandhi about the bill. This bill removes
many of the steps that the District currently goes through to
outline spending and project the District's future fiscal
responsibilities. In the absence of these additional steps,
what safeguards will come into effect if the District begins to
spend into deficit spending? What safeguards will be in place?
Mr. Gandhi. Sir, the institution of the independent chief
financial officer will assure the Mayor, the Council Chair and
the Council, the Congress, and the citizens that we will not
have a budget that is not balanced. I am obligated to certify a
balanced budget before it moves to the Congress. And if we are
given budget autonomy, then we will make sure in our offices
that the budget that is put forward by the Mayor to the Council
is properly certified as balanced and that we will have not
only a 1-year balanced budget but a 5-year balanced budget. So
I think this requirement on the part of the independent chief
financial officer in itself is enough to assure the Mayor and
the Council, and of course the Congress, that the District will
not have unbalanced budgets.
Mr. Clay. In your testimony you cite the specific
benchmarks, the act details to ensure astute financial
management. Can you elaborate a little bit on those benchmarks?
Is that the 5-year projected budget and the balanced budget?
Are those the benchmarks?
Mr. Gandhi. We are by law and by practice requiring a 5-
year plan. The reason for that is that we want to make sure
that revenues and expenditures are not moved across the years
so that we would balance in 1 year but not in the next year. At
the end of the day, if there is a recurring expenditure there
has to be a recurring source. So you balance the budget this
year but also make sure that does not create an unbalanced
budget next year.
Mr. Clay. Thank you for that response.
Mr. Mayor and Mr. Gray, in 2007 at the start of the school
Chancellor Michelle Rhee's tenure a warehouse was discovered
with new, unopened textbooks that have yet to be distributed.
How will the District's autonomy be structured to ensure that
an instance like this does not occur again, costing the
taxpayers in the District unnecessary funds?
Mayor Fenty. That is a great question, Congressman. There
probably are a couple different things that having faster
moving laws and faster moving budget will do to allow
inspectors to review where spending is going to allow us to get
at waste. But I would say as the top manager for the city, that
one is inexcusable given any set of laws. That is a management
failure in not knowing where your dollars are being spent and
wasted. I give the Chancellor a tremendous amount of credit in
her first months for being able to find wasted resources like
that and then direct them to the classroom.
Mr. Clay. Thank you for your response. Mr. Gray, anything
to add?
Mr. Gray. Congressman Clay, I, too, think that what we are
discussing today in terms of budget autonomy and legislative
autonomy is less likely to address that. I think that is a
management issue.
If you look at some of the additional controls that the
District has put in place over, let us say, the last decade, we
have an Inspector General now to whom complaints like this
about the operation of services would go. We have an auditor
who works with the D.C. Council who looks at complaints around
the delivery of services. So when you look at the degree to
which we have introduced new controls, those kind of management
failings are more likely to be ferreted out now than perhaps
they would have been 15 or 20 years ago or certainly 35 years
ago when limited home rule was accorded to the District of
Columbia.
Mr. Clay. Thank you. I thank the panel for their response.
I yield back.
Mr. Lynch. I understand we are going to have votes on the
floor momentarily. I think this panel has suffered enough.
[Laughter.]
I appreciate the generosity of your time and also the
quality of your testimony. I think you have helped us
enormously in grappling with this issue. I trust this will be
an ongoing dialog between this subcommittee and all of you on
behalf of the District. I want to thank you for your
willingness to come before this subcommittee and help us with
our work.
Without objection, the subcommittee now stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Additional information submitted for the hearing record
follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7789.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T7789.054