U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

88–273 PDF 2015

S. Hrg. 113–543 

SHUTDOWN: EXAMINING FEDERAL GOVERNMENT 

CLOSURE IMPACTS ON THE DISTRICT OF 

COLUMBIA 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGENCY 

MANAGEMENT, INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS, 

AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON 

HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JANUARY 30, 2014 

Available via http://www.fdsys.gov 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security 

and Governmental Affairs 

( 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware Chairman 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

JON TESTER, Montana 

MARK BEGICH, Alaska 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

RAND PAUL, Kentucky 

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming 

KELLY AYOTTE, New Hampshire 

RICHARD J. KESSLER, Staff Director 

KEITH B. ASHDOWN, Minority Staff Director 

LAURA W. KILBRIDE, Chief Clerk 

LAUREN M. CORCORAN, Hearing Clerk 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, INTERGOVERNMENTAL 

RELATIONS, AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

MARK BEGICH, Alaska Chairman 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

JON TESTER, Montana 

HEIDI HEITKAMP, North Dakota 

RAND PAUL, Kentucky 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

MICHAEL B. ENZI, Wyoming 

PAT MCQUILLAN, Staff Director 

BRANDON BOOKER, Minority Staff Director 

KELSEY STROUD, Chief Clerk 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Opening statement: Page 

Senator Begich .................................................................................................. 1 

WITNESSES 

THURSDAY, JANUARY 30, 2014 

Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton, Congresswoman from the District of Columbia . 3 

Hon. Tom Davis, Former Chairman, House Government Reform Committee ... 6 

Allen Y. Lew, City Administrator, Executive Office of the Mayor, The District 

of Columbia ........................................................................................................... 8 

Robert Vogel, Superintendent of the National Mall and Memorial Parks, 

National Park Service .......................................................................................... 11 

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF WITNESSES

Davis, Hon. Tom: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 6 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 24 

Holmes Norton, Hon. Eleanor: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 3 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 21 

Lew, Allen Y.: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 8 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 27 

Vogel, Robert: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 11 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 38 

APPENDIX 

Questions and responses for the Record from: 

Mr. Lew ............................................................................................................. 40 

(1) 

SHUTDOWN: EXAMINING FEDERAL 

GOVERNMENT CLOSURE IMPACTS ON THE 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

THURSDAY, JANUARY 30, 2014 

U.S. SENATE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT,

INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS,

AND THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,

OF THE COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:32 p.m., in room 

SD–342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Mark Begich, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

Present: Senator Begich. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR BEGICH 

Senator BEGICH. We will call this meeting to order. Good afternoon, and welcome to the Subcommittee on Emergency Management, Intergovernmental Relations, and the District of Columbia. 

We are here today to look at how the people of Washington, DC, 

are impacted when the Federal Government shuts down, as it did 

most recently last October, and what steps can be taken to prevent 

the harm in the future. 

People in all 50 States, including my home State of Alaska, felt 

the pain of a shutdown, but our Nation’s capital, especially tied to 

Federal operations with such large proportions of Federal workers 

and a city government that must wait for Congress to approve its 

spending in the District of Columbia, faces unique challenges. 

I am honored to be joined at today’s hearing by four distinguished public servants who have worked for many years in many 

different ways to help this city succeed and grow. Their different 

perspectives and insights are vital to understanding what happened and how to move forward. 

As I have said many times, the government shutdown was totally 

unnecessary and inflicted needless economic damage on families 

and businesses across this country. When too many in Congress 

put politics ahead of working together on commonsense solutions to 

our problems, Congress fails to do its basic job of keeping our government running. 

I was encouraged that, in the end, Members of the House and 

Senate were able to come together in a bipartisan way to forge a 

deal that ended the shutdown. Our Alaska delegation set a good 
2 

example of how we can work across party lines to solve problems. 

But it is essential that in putting the unnecessary crisis behind us 

we do not put our heads in the sand and ignore the effects of the 

shutdown on people’s lives. It is important for us to know the consequences of failure to compromise so that we are even more motivated to avoid future shutdowns. 

In my home State of Alaska, we have the third highest proportion of Federal workers of any State. Over 16,000 Alaskans were 

furloughed from their jobs, left in limbo as to whether or not they 

would be paid. That uncertainty hits Alaska families hard. With 

such a high cost of living, there are not many Alaskans who have 

the luxury of being able to skip a few paychecks while the Federal 

Government gets its act together. 

Our King Crab fisheries could not open on schedule because the 

Federal workers in charge of issuing permits and handling fishing 

quotas were told to stay home. That is real money out of the pockets of Alaska fishermen. That is bills that are not paid, goods and 

services that are not bought. It is hard to fully calculate the final 

cost to my State, but some have put it as high as $39 million. 

During the early part of the shutdown, 5,000 members of our 

armed services were furloughed. Veterans were turned away when 

attempting to file medical claims. And benefit claims for Alaska’s 

74,000 veterans were processed much more slowly. It is outrageous 

and unacceptable that Congress’ dysfunction jeopardized the hardearned pay and benefits of the men and women who put their lives 

on the line to defend our country. 

I could talk all day about Alaska and what the shutdown meant 

for my State at least for the rest of our hearing, but the main focus 

today is to discuss how the shutdown has impacted Washington, 

DC. We need to hear how the District of Columbia was affected and 

what we can do to move forward to ensure that these pointless 

shutdowns do not keep happening. I look forward to the hearing, 

and I know we have a great line up of guests here today, and I 

really greatly appreciate you taking the time. 

Also I want to recognize Senator Paul Strauss, the shadow Senator for Washington, DC, in the audience today. Thank you very 

much. 

First, we have four panelists, and we thank you. Congresswoman 

Holmes Norton, this is the first time I have been able to be here 

and stay without being rushed out for a vote, so I think I will say 

this, even though it is not true: I made sure that vote happened 

before this hearing so we could be here. [Laughter.] 

But it seems like every time you are here, I am rushing out. But 

thank you for being here, and as the sole Congressional representative of the District of Columbia since 1991, you have been incredible in your advocacy for Washington, DC, and I know meeting 

with myself and others, and thank you for being here today. Let 

me start with you, and then we will just go down the list here. 
3 

1The prepared statement of Congresswoman Norton appears in the Appendix on page 21. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HON. ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON,1 A 

REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE DISTRICT OF 

COLUMBIA 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Chairman Begich, first of 

all, for your attention to the District, for your assistance to the District, and certainly for this hearing. It is a hearing perhaps provoked by your own experience initially. I did not recognize that 

Alaska had the third highest number of Federal employees, so I 

know your constituents must have felt this very deeply. But we appreciate that you are able to bring that experience to what the District of Columbia experienced during that time. 

Mr. Chairman, I am going to summarize my testimony and ask 

that my entire testimony be entered into the record. 

Senator BEGICH. Without objection. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, it may have taken a shutdown of 

the Federal Government to do it, but I think it is now pretty clear 

how wrong it is, how absurd it is, to allow the local funds of a local 

jurisdiction to be caught up by the Federal Government at any 

time, certainly during a shutdown, ignoring the oldest American 

government principle, which is that local control of local dollars for 

local citizens. 

Mr. Chairman, it is really not surprising to look at the polls and 

see that across all lines, overwhelmingly Americans support budget 

autonomy for the District of Columbia. I think that number would 

probably be increased after this hearing when they understand 

that a shutdown of the District could occur because of the absence 

of budget autonomy. A large majority of Republicans, 72 percent, 

support budget autonomy for the District, 75 percent of Independents, 71 percent of Democrats. 

After the unnecessary debacle of the shutdown, we are asking for 

the return of budget autonomy to the District of Columbia. We say 

‘‘return,’’ Mr. Chairman, because the District of Columbia had autonomy over its own budget for the first 80 years of its experience. 

Mr. Chairman, I was a constitutional lawyer before I came to Congress, and constitutional lawyers and the courts will tell you that 

when you look at what the framers intended, you look at the period 

closest to when the Constitution was passed, during that period 

and for 80 years, the District of Columbia had control over its own 

budget. There was back-and-forth about how much Home Rule, but 

isn’t it interesting to note that there was no doubt that local funds 

should be in the hands of local officials? 

It was not until 1878 that Congress took away budget autonomy, 

and at that point it is interesting to note that it also wiped out 

what had been various forms of Home Rule and gave the District 

the most undemocratic regime the United States has ever had, a 

presidentially appointed three-commissioner form of government. 

That meant that in the Nation’s capital there was no Mayor, there 

was no Council, and there certainly was no Delegate to the Congress. It was not until 40 years ago that we began to implement 

what is now called the Home Rule Act of 1973. 

Mr. Chairman, as I sit here in the Senate, I want to remind you 

that the Senate version of that 1973 Home Rule Act, in fact, did 
4 

have budget autonomy for the District of Columbia. It was the 

House that rejected that provision, and the Home Rule Act passed 

without it. We are hopeful—that Congress may be close to righting 

itself again on this issue. 

Not long after I came to the Congress in 1995 and 1996, there 

were multiple shutdowns of parts of the Federal Government, and 

to his credit, Speaker Newt Gingrich, whom I worked closely with 

during that period—Congressman Davis also was my close partner 

throughout that period. But I would go to Speaker Gingrich’s office 

as parts of the Federal Government shut down, and then the Congress would get through one appropriation, and the rest, but the 

District appropriation had not gone through, and I would say, 

‘‘Newt, you are not going to let them shut down the District government, are you?’’ And sure enough, he kept the District government 

open during these shutdowns. 

In 2004, the Republican-led Senate approved by unanimous consent a bill granting the District budget autonomy. That bill died in 

the House. President Bush, during 3 years of his Administration, 

endorsed budget autonomy for the District of Columbia. 

I am gratified that the notion of leaving the District with control 

over its own $6 billion raised from its own residents and businesses 

should remain in the District has grown worth bipartisan support 

in the last couple of years. In the 112th Congress Senator 

Lieberman and Senator Collins introduced a bipartisan bill to give 

the District budget autonomy. My good friend in the House whose 

committee has jurisdiction over the District of Columbia, Chairman 

Darrell Issa, strongly supports budget autonomy and has been able 

to get his own bill, which has most elements of budget autonomy, 

out of his Committee. The bill would still have to be perfected, but 

he has gone that far. 

We have the same support from the President of the United 

States. The President went so far, Mr. Chairman, in his fiscal year 

(FY) 2014 budget to include actual language giving the District 

budget autonomy. The Senate Appropriations Committee passed 

that language. We should have budget autonomy today. The House 

did not allow that change to go through. 

During the 16-day shutdown, I was gratified to hear some of our 

Republican colleagues on the floor. They did try to get the District 

out of the morass when they were trying to reopen the government 

agency by agency, and I understand how concerned Democrats and 

the President were with piecemealing appropriations. Of course, 

DC is not part of the Federal Government, so we really felt that 

we had been caught betwixt and between in a situation we could 

do nothing about. 

But Representative Ander Crenshaw, who is the Chairman of the 

Appropriations Subcommittee with jurisdiction over the District, 

said during his floor remarks, ‘‘The District’s locally raised funds 

should not be withheld from them during this current Federal 

shutdown. This disagreement that the Republicans and the Democrats are having over Federal spending should not stop the District 

from using its own locally raised funds like any other city in America.’’ I do not believe our appropriators ultimately would oppose 

budget autonomy for the District. 
5 

The fiscal year 2014 continuing resolution (CR) that reopened the 

Federal Government did make a breakthrough for the first time. It 

permitted the District to spend its money throughout 2014, although if you will recall, Mr. Chairman, the Federal Government 

was spending its money only until very recently, and it was spending at 2013 levels. That was the first time that we had been able 

to keep the District open and going on next year’s funding even 

though the Federal Government itself had not yet been funded for 

the rest of the fiscal year. 

Perhaps even more significantly, though the Congress did not 

grant us the permanent shutdown authority that we have asked, 

just give us no-shutdown authority, it did permit the District to 

spend its local funds throughout fiscal year 2015 during a Federal 

Government shutdown. So that means even if there are disagreements between the House and the Senate or the Congress and the 

Administration, there will be no shutdown threat to the District 

until October 1, 2015. I suppose we ought to be happy and go 

home. 

Disputes over the Federal budget, interestingly, have not ever 

had anything to do with D.C. or its local funds. Indeed, the fiscal 

condition of the District of Columbia is among the best in the 

United States. That is one of the reasons that Chairman Darrell 

Issa, after a hearing of his own on the District, immediately came 

out for budget autonomy for the District of Columbia. He noted 

that not only had the District, unlike the Federal Government, had 

no problem balancing its budget, but that we have a $1.5 billion 

reserve fund because the District government is very careful. 

We do not believe, Mr. Chairman, that there is a single Member 

of the Congress who wants to bring a big, complicated city to its 

knees. We think they do not want to do it for the District’s sake, 

and we think they also understand that the District of Columbia 

serves the Congress itself, Federal officials, businesses, foreign embassies. No one, I think, intends this. The waste captured by requiring the District to bring its local budget here is startling. The 

District, even if it does not shut down, has to go through the same 

contingency exercise that the entire Federal Government goes 

through in case there is a shutdown. Even if the District is kept 

going because we are operating under CRs, and, by the way, 

thanks to Republican appropriators some years ago, when the Federal Government operates under one of those CRs, the District operates at next year’s funding levels. After all, we have already 

passed our budget. 

But think about what operating under a CR does to a local government. If there is any threat of a District shutdown, Wall Street 

notices that. It already notices that we have to come two places to 

have our budget passed in the first place. Successive CRs greatly 

hinder the operations of the District. They make it difficult to plan 

our activities because you are still operating on a CR. The city’s 

partners and Wall Street can charge a risk premium due to uncertainty created by successive CRs. 

Budget autonomy would eliminate the uncertainty that is inherent in the Congressional approval process. The unnecessary costs 

it adds to our taxpayers, the inaccurate revenue forecasts that we 

must make because we are now in your budget year, not the same 
6 

1The prepared statement of Congressman Davis appears in the Appendix on page 24. 

budget year that, for example, Alaska and almost every other jurisdiction in the United States is in, countless operational problems. 

We would be most happy, Mr. Chairman, to be able to use the typical State and local government fiscal year from July 1 to June 30. 

We cannot do that. The reason that Alaska is on that fiscal year 

goes back to the period when every government understood that 

you want to get your budget done before school opens. Our budget 

is done after school opens. That causes great hardship in and of 

itself. If for no other reason, we want to go on the same fiscal year 

everyone else has. 

Mr. Chairman, if I may say so, the District budget consumes— 

unlike this Committee, which brings us here when there is something that has to be done, imagine what this does to the entire 

Senate and House and to its Appropriations Committees. They 

have to have Subcommittee time and Committee time and floor 

time on somebody’s budget they know nothing about, care nothing 

about, could be less interested in. If that is not the very definition 

of ‘‘nonsense,’’ I do not know what is. 

Mr. Chairman, I am very grateful that recent history demonstrates that the Congress itself may be moving toward D.C. 

budget autonomy. I just hope it gets up its nerve. We hope that 

last year’s shutdown will be the final chapter on why the city’s 

local budget should become effective upon passage by the District 

of Columbia. 

Thank you again for this hearing, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator BEGICH. Thank you very much, Congresswoman. 

The next person we have is former Congressman Tom Davis, who 

served the people of Virginia’s 11th District for 7 years. He was 

Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee from 2003 to 2007 and had jurisdiction over the District of 

Columbia. He also is an incredible trivia person. I served on one 

of his teams, and we won. I was just the pawn in the game. You 

were the official. Please. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HON. TOM DAVIS,1 FORMER CHAIRMAN, 

HOUSE GOVERNMENT REFORM COMMITTEE 

Mr. DAVIS. Senator, thank you so much for holding this hearing 

and for paying attention to this issue. I think this is just an oversight on the part of the Congress. I do not think anybody ever intended this to occur. But like so many things, it happened, it has 

continued to happen, and perhaps we can get a fix out of this. So 

I really thank you for holding this. 

When I came into Congress in 1995, the city was in pretty dire 

straits. Their bond rating was junk bond status. The city was close 

to bankruptcy. Crime was high. But a lot of things have occurred 

over the last 20 years. It has been a remarkable turnaround. It is 

a far different city today. 

I would ask that my full comments be made part of the record. 

Senator BEGICH. Without objection. 

Mr. DAVIS. The crime rate has fallen dramatically, its budget is 

running in the black, and I believe it has probably got the largest 

surplus of any city in the United States, which does not do you any 
7 

good if you cannot spend it. But they have done a very good job, 

and I think the need now for Congressional micromanagement is 

no longer present. The city has shown itself to be a responsible 

steward of its own destiny. The Control Board also remain dormant 

over the city if they should fail to balance their budget in any one 

year, so that is a strong incentive for them to continue to get surpluses out of their budget. 

It is difficult to substantiate why the city’s own budget, raised 

through local taxes from local citizens, should be frozen or delayed 

just because Congress has not been able to pass an Appropriation 

bill. Although this is a relatively rare occurrence, it did happen 

twice, in 1995—and we worked to relieve that somewhat—and once 

last year. A Federal shutdown wreaks havoc on the city’s budget 

and operations. It jeopardizes not only city services but the operations of the Federal Government. And even if you deem all the 

employees essential, as the Mayor said, they still do not get paid. 

So there are a lot of issues with that that we maybe have a chance 

to correct. 

No other city in the world operates in this manner and with 

these restrictions. We have to ask ourselves, ‘‘Why should the capital city, the beacon light for the free world, be subject to these constraints?’’ And the answer, of course, is that it should not. City taxpayers should be able to keep their city running with city tax dollars regardless of what budget deadlocks occur here on Capitol Hill. 

Our Founding Fathers reserved the District Clause in the Constitution because they were not sure what would happen. This was 

a city—it was originally going to go to Philadelphia, but time ran 

out in one Congress. In an ensuing Congress, a deal was reached 

where the new government would pick up the debt from the Revolutionary War, which the North wanted, and the South would get 

the capital. And we knew it would be 100 square miles, but they 

did not know much else. So they put a District Clause in the Constitution giving Congress plenary power over laws pertaining to the 

District. I do not think they could have foreseen a city of 600,000 

people with the myriad of issues that have been raised in the ensuing years. So, in their wisdom they said Congress shall have exclusive authority over that. 

When the city’s home rule was restored in the 1970s, after nearly 

a century of appointed leadership, Congress also inserted a layover 

provision of 30 legislative days to disapprove any ordinance passed 

by the City Council. What we need to understand is the city is now 

passing everything on an emergency basis. It is taking a lot of time 

and effort. Congress has not exercised this layover provision in the 

time I was in Congress as over the last 20 years. Only on a few 

occasions does it ever impose its will, usually through the appropriation process and usually on some hot-button social issue. So the 

need for that layover provision is also something, I think, that 

needs to be looked at. It is rarely utilized. I know it has not been 

utilized in the last 20 years and I think for some time before that. 

And that would also give the city more autonomy, I think, and efficiency in the way it conducts itself. 

It is just hard to believe that our Founders would have envisioned the inaction of Congress not passing a budget would shut 

down the operations of the municipal government that was sup-
8 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Lew appears in the Appendix on page 27. 

posed to protect it, and this has been the unintended consequence 

of the government shutdown. And while it may be another decade 

before we face the issue again, this is an appropriate time for Congress to address this issue. 

In doing so, I just want to emphasize Congress does not give up 

anything. The District Clause reserves the power of Congress to 

step in at any time. But the change would allow the city and the 

continuity in city government that not only would make it more efficient, but it would be predictable. It also holds the city elected officials responsible for bad results instead of just blaming Congress. 

There is no reason to link the operation of local government with 

local money, to the dysfunction of the Congressional budget process. 

There have been sticking points in the past around some of the 

riders that Congress has put on particularly the abortion issue. If 

it rides up, what does this do to that? Congress reserves the power 

on an annual basis with its Appropriation bill to put on any rider 

that it would want. All we are asking, I think, right here is that 

the city’s budget continues. Congress does not lose that constitutional power at any single time. But having that predictability and 

continuity is essential, and I think looking at this layover clause 

as well, it is long overdue to try to remove that. The city has shown 

itself a good steward over the last 20 years, and so I would ask for 

that as well. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it. 

Senator BEGICH. Thank you very much. 

Next we have the District of Columbia City Administrator Allen 

Lew, who has managed the daily operations since 2011. He has a 

distinguished record of service in the public and private sectors, including work to improve D.C. public education and supports infrastructure. Mr. Lew. 

TESTIMONY OF ALLEN Y. LEW,1 CITY ADMINISTRATOR, EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE MAYOR, THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

Mr. LEW. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Allen Lew. I 

am the City Administrator of the District of Columbia. Thank you 

for the opportunity to provide testimony on behalf of Mayor Vincent Gray on the impact of the Federal Government shutdown on 

District government operations. 

From October 1, 2013, through October 16, 2013, there was a 

lapse in Federal appropriations, also referred to as a ‘‘Federal Government shutdown,’’ which affected various Federal agencies, departments, and offices. Since the District’s budget is subject to appropriation by Congress, the shutdown impacted the operations of 

the District government. 

During prior lapses in Federal appropriations, the District designated only a subset of District government operations to continue 

during the shutdown. Several agencies, such as the Department of 

Motor Vehicles, the Department of Parks and Recreation, and the 

District of Columbia Public Library would completely close, while 

many other agencies operated on a skeleton staff with many activities suspended. 
9 

This year, the Mayor took the bold and unprecedented step of 

designating all operations of the District government as essential 

to the public safety, health, or protection of property, and therefore, 

all District operations were exempt from the shutdown. As far as 

I am aware, this is the first time ever under Home Rule that the 

District government remained fully open during a lapse in appropriations. 

Although the District remained open, the lapse in Federal appropriations did impact District government operations. For the most 

part, however, the restriction on expenditures limited the District’s 

ability to pay fiscal year 2014 operating costs, such as contractors 

and staff, to funds available in the Contingency Reserve Fund and 

the Emergency Reserve Fund. 

During the shutdown, the majority of funds expended or allocated by the District were from the Contingency Reserve Fund. We 

realize that we would have to establish a rigorous process to authorize use of the Contingency Reserve Fund. In order to limit expenditures to less than the average daily amount and thereby extend the government’s ability to operate from this Reserve Fund, 

as part of this authorize process each agency was required to submit to the Office of the City Administrator a formal request to access the Contingency Reserve Fund if the agency believed that a 

payment to a contractor or other third party should be made. Given 

the limited availability of funds, each request was closely reviewed 

by the relevant OCA analyst and legal staff to examine a variety 

of factors, including the following: 

Whether the expenditure of funds was necessary, rather than 

merely the obligation of funds. For instances where only an obligation of funds was needed, generally to enter into a contract, we established a separate authorization process that did not require 

using the Contingency Reserve Fund. Establishing this process 

took a few days of drafting, review, and coordination among our office, the Office of the Chief Financial Officer (CFO), the Office of 

the Attorney General, as well as the Office of Contracting and Procurement. So during the first days of the shutdown, some allocations of the Contingency Reserve Fund were made for obligations 

rather than expenditures; 

The degree to which the payment or obligation was necessary to 

protect the public health, safety, and welfare. Requests that did not 

have a strong connection to the protection of public health, safety, 

and welfare received lower priority; 

Whether any other source of funds could be used to pay the expenditure. For some requested payments, alternate sources of 

funds were available, such as capital funds or Federal grant funds. 

In addition, many of the invoices the District received during the 

shutdown were for services that were provided during fiscal year 

2013. These invoices could be paid or were paid with fiscal year 

2013 funds and, therefore, did not require the use of the Contingency Reserve; 

Whether payment could be delayed. Often we found that we had 

flexibility on when a payment could be made. If we were able to 

delay payment until later in the fiscal year, we did so and avoided 

use of the Contingency Reserve; 
10 

Whether the full payment needed to be made. If we determined 

that payment was critical and time-sensitive, we would further review the agency’s request to determine whether a partial or shortterm payment could be made. In many instances, we were able to 

limit the expenditure or obligation to a 2-week or 1-month period, 

thereby limiting our draw on the Contingency Reserve Fund. 

Because of these stringent procedures, we were able to limit nonsalary expenditures and obligations from the Contingency Reserve 

Fund to under $20 million during the entire shutdown period. Of 

the total amount expended or allocated, the following five were $1 

million or more: 

$7.4 million for the Department of Human Services for the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families; $3.6 million for United Medical Center, to continue the hospital’s 

operations during the shutdown; $2.4 million for the Department of Corrections, for contractual 

obligations related to inmate services; $1.1 million for the Department of Public Works, primarily for 

trash hauling and waste management; and $1 million to the Department of Health for the Women, Infants, 

and Children program. 

The District was forced to delay a number of regular payments 

due to limitation on its funds. 

The first payment the District delayed was our quarterly contribution to the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority 

(WMATA). This $114 million payment was due by October 10, but 

because of the limited amount of appropriated funds available in 

the Contingency Reserve, we were unable to pay the full amount. 

The District made a partial payment of $34 million from its capital 

budget. WMATA was able to continue operations with its funds on 

hand, and the District’s remaining operating funds payment was 

made promptly after the shutdown ended. 

Further, the District directed the D.C. Water and Sewer Authority to tap their cash reserves to continue operations during that 

Federal shutdown period. Also, two payments to Medicaid providers were delayed. The first payment, for $89 million, was due 

on October 1; the second one, for $35 million, was due on October 

7. 

During the shutdown, the Federal employees were eligible to 

make claims for unemployment insurance payments. In October 

2012, the District logged just under 4,000 regular unemployment 

insurance claims. In October 2013 that number jumped to over 

8,600. Federal claims for October 2012 were 120; claims in October 

2013 were over 15,500. The District Department of Employment 

Services, the agency that manages the unemployment insurance 

program, was able to maintain its high level of service, but if the 

shutdown had continued, a very real potential existed for insolvency of the unemployment insurance fund due to the massive increase in claims without access to Federal borrowing to pay for the 

increased claims. 

Also, during the shutdown the Mayor directed the Department of 

Public Works to collect trash that was accumulating at a number 

of public sites under the jurisdiction of the National Park Service. 

I believe it was 372 locations. The Mayor took this action in order 
11 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Vogel appears in the Appendix on page 38. 

to address public health concerns and resident complaints. The District incurred costs of approximately $92,000 to provide this service, which took place from October 5 through October 16. 

As you can see, the District’s success during the most recent 

shutdown was due to the Mayor’s unfailing commitment to continue to provide services to the 647,000 District of Columbia residents and the ability to use funds that were available for unplanned needs. 

I am sure you will agree that this is not an appropriate way for 

the District of Columbia, the Nation’s capital, to operate. There is 

no reason that local funds raised through local taxes paid by District of Columbia residents and spent by the District of Columbia 

government should be entangled in Federal debates on Capitol Hill. 

Having the District of Columbia government’s budget ensnarled in 

the Federal appropriations process unnecessarily threatens the District of Columbia’s financial stability. 

The Mayor appreciates that Congress has recently passed legislation that would permit the District of Columbia to spend its local 

funds in fiscal year 2014 as well as in fiscal year 2015 in the event 

that Congress has not passed a budget. While this temporary fix 

is helpful, residents of the District of Columbia need more. The obvious solution is to eliminate the threat of shutdown by enacting 

legislation that would separate the District’s locally raised tax dollars from the Federal budget. Budget autonomy is a commonsense 

and practical step that would provide financial security to the Nation’s capital and to its nearly 647,000 residents. 

On behalf of Mayor Vincent Gray and the people of the District 

of Columbia, I ask that you move legislation that would give the 

District control over its local funds as soon as possible. 

That concludes my testimony. I am available to answer any questions. 

Senator BEGICH. Thank you very much. 

Our next and last speaker is Robert Vogel, the Superintendent 

of the National Mall and Memorial Parks, a unit of the National 

Park Service, for which he has worked for 30 years. He is responsible for managing daily operations at The Mall, including some of 

the highest-profile monuments and other public parks throughout 

the city. 

Thank you very much for being here. 

TESTIMONY OF ROBERT VOGEL,1 SUPERINTENDENT OF THE 

NATIONAL MALL AND MEMORIAL PARKS, NATIONAL PARK 

SERVICE 

Mr. VOGEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

From October 1 through October 16, 2013, the National Park 

Service, along with other bureaus and offices of the Department of 

the Interior, implemented a shutdown of our activities due to a 

lapse in appropriations. 

In a shutdown caused by a lapse in appropriations, all Federal 

agencies are required by law to shut down any activities funded by 

annual appropriations that are not excepted by law. Because the 

Antideficiency Act prohibits Federal agency officials from incurring 
12 

financial obligations in the absence of appropriations, the National 

Park Service was forced to close all 401 National Park units and 

suspend operations. All park grounds, visitor centers, concessions, 

and park roads, including those in the District of Columbia, were 

required to be closed, and more than 20,000 National Park Service 

employees were furloughed. 

This closure did not apply to through-roads in parks that provided primary access between points located outside of the parks, 

such as Rock Creek Parkway. It also did not apply to First Amendment activities at the National Mall and Memorial Parks. 

During the closure, the National Park Service maintained security staff, including services provided by the United States Park 

Police and rangers, for emergency and disaster assistance. We also 

coordinated with the government of the District of Columbia on 

road closures and other critical life and safety issues. Projects that 

were funded from non-lapsing appropriations, such as the Washington Monument restoration, continued. 

There was a great deal of attention paid to the implementation 

of the shutdown with respect to the monuments and memorials on 

the National Mall. On a normal day, there are 300 National Mall 

and Memorial Park employees on duty. They are onsite to provide 

the eyes and ears for the U.S. Park Police and ensure the safekeeping of our national treasures, as well as maintaining the landscape, and enhancing the visitor experience. 

All but a dozen of the National Mall and Memorial Parks employees were furloughed. Even though the U.S. Park Police commissioned officers were excepted from the furlough, prudent steps 

were taken to secure life and property at these national icons. 

In managing the closure, we worked to balance our legal obligations with the needs of our veterans who often visit war memorials 

on the National Mall. Throughout the shutdown, we worked with 

the Honor Flight Network and others to try to ensure that veterans 

were not turned away. 

We are very aware that the District of Columbia government, 

businesses, and organizations that operate in the District, as well 

as residents, experienced disproportionate negative impacts from 

the closures of the sites managed by the National Park Service. We 

have a great deal of sympathy for those that experienced a disruption of activity and a loss of revenue. 

The National Park Service does not plan for shutdowns; rather, 

we take pride in ensuring that the public has access to this Nation’s treasures. So making our sites unavailable to the public was 

very painful to our staff, but necessary under the law. It was an 

enormous relief when Congress approved appropriations to fund 

the government through the remainder of fiscal year 2014, and we 

hope to have continuous funding in future years. 

Thank you. 

Senator BEGICH. Thank you all very much, and I agree with your 

last statement there. I hope so, too. 

First I want to start with Congresswoman Norton. Thank you for 

your testimony. Thank you for your advocacy for years on the issue 

of budget autonomy. I have a unique role here not only chairing 

this Committee, but I sit on the Appropriations Committee. So 

when you made the comment that appropriators would not have a 
13 

problem with it, I do not have a problem with it. I think budget 

autonomy, also as a former mayor, makes a lot of sense in the 

sense of the work you need to do. 

If I can ask just a couple of questions, then I have a couple for 

several here, but if you could look at the District—and obviously 

you do every day—what would be the one or two most challenging 

issues for the District to look at, not only current but down the 

road for the District, that you see kind of materializing, assuming 

that the government is funded, you fund it, everyone is moving forward? But what would be the challenges that are kind of sitting 

out there with Washington, DC, at this point? 

Ms. NORTON. First, Mr. Chairman, I did not recognize you were 

on the Appropriation Committee, so I need to thank you, because 

the Senate Appropriation bill, in fact, did give the District budget 

autonomy. 

Mr. Chairman, I can say to you truthfully that while the District 

has the challenges of big cities, its major challenges today come 

from the Congress, and let me give you two examples. 

First is the budget autonomy example, and here leave aside shutdowns. Suppose the government, in fact, was on regular order—and 

it has not been on regular order now for years. But our appropriation got out; it got out on time. The very act of bringing the budget 

here cost the District on Wall Street. The District’s budget has to 

be prepared many months in advance because it is now on the Federal, not its own or the typical time table—and its forecasts, therefore, are often wrong. You cannot forecast with that kind of timeframe. 

The District schools—and that is where our biggest challenge is, 

if you were looking only at the city, Mr. Chairman, and our schools 

have improved significantly. In fact, they had, according to the nationwide tests, the best improvement of any school system in the 

United States. And it is the first priority of the city. But the 

schools are also put at a disadvantage because the District dare not 

spend its funds until it gets permission—and I use that word advisedly—from the Federal Government. 

So I would say that the bundle of issues—that is the only way 

to talk about them, because they are many—that are encapsulated 

by having to bring the budget you raise to a body that has no information about it and has no reason to care about it is the No. 1 

problem. 

Mr. Chairman, added to that is one that my good friend spoke 

about, and we call it ‘‘legislative autonomy,’’ but I decided this 

year, in introducing it as my first bill of the year, to call it the 

‘‘D.C. Paperwork Reduction Act.’’ This bill makes the budget autonomy bill look mildly efficient, because that one means that the District has to pass bills three times. According to the Council, about 

65 percent of its work comes from having to pass bills because 

some of what they have to get done has to be done right away, and 

the Congress under the Home Rule Act requires District legislation 

to, and the word is, ‘‘layover’’ in the Congress for 30 of the Congress’ legislative days or, in the event of criminal legislation, 60 

legislative days. 

Well, consider, Mr. Chairman, how often the Congress is out of 

session. That is simply the way Congress has always acted. 
14 

To give one example, it was not one of the most important bills 

in the Councils, but they changed the word ‘‘handicap’’ to ‘‘disability.’’ It took 9 months to become final. 

Issues of far greater importance go through this same process. 

Now, you might say, well, in the Home Rule Act, Congress obviously wanted to make sure that the District was passing legislation 

that was only for the District and not Federal. Mr. Chairman, almost immediately the Congress abandoned the layover period. The 

layover period is simply not used. 

If the Congress, in fact, finds something in the District that it 

wants to overturn, it uses the Appropriation bill. Only three times 

in 40 years has the Congress used the layover period to overturn 

DC legislation; two of those times the District did something by 

mistake. These were close issues, and it was not clear whether they 

were Federal or District issues. The District is very careful not to 

impinge on Federal jurisdiction. They only wish that the Federal 

Government was as careful about the District’s jurisdiction. 

So I can say to you, Mr. Chairman, yes, we have the problems 

of a big city with too many poor people. We have the problems that 

our infrastructure needs what, frankly, much of what we, like 

every jurisdiction get from the Congress of the United States. We 

have problems in our schools. Those are problems endemic to the 

city. But when I look at major problems of the city, the two issues 

I have named have been put upon the District by the Congress 

and, if lifted off of the District, would bring very significant improvements to city operations. 

Senator BEGICH. Very good. Thank you. 

Congressman Davis, let me ask you, you talked about the layover 

power, but also you gave a little bit of history of what it looked like 

from your viewpoint in the early 1990s where the District was and 

where it kind of progressed. And from your looking from outside in 

during those years, I think 2003, 2007, when you serve in the Committee capacity, what would you say caused that to change? What 

was it? Was it the local communities kind of moving forward? What 

made that change? 

Mr. DAVIS. Well, it was a combination of things. First of all, 

when we did the Control Board Act, which was in 1995—Mrs. Norton was part of that, Alice Rivlin, it was really a bipartisan bill 

that was introduced and signed into law 10 days later, real bipartisan—we created an independent chief financial officer, who cannot be removed. So we get good numbers out of the city. We upped 

the Inspector General. We rearranged, took away the debt service—— 

Senator BEGICH. Let me interrupt you. So the CFO position you 

did, when you say independent, is it almost like an independent 

auditor position versus a traditional CFO that might work for a 

mayor? 

Mr. DAVIS. No, it is like a—I will yield to Allen on that. 

Senator BEGICH. I am just thinking in my days as mayor, I had 

a CFO, I had a city manager. They worked directly for me, and I 

could remove them at any point. 

Mr. LEW. No, the Mayor cannot remove him at any point, but it 

is kind of like a product of the Financial Control Board era. 

Senator BEGICH. OK. 
15 

Mr. LEW. But, the CFO is viewed as having autonomy and independence, and it served the city well in the last 20 years, and it 

has allowed the city to hit AAA bond ratings. It got out of its junk 

status. 

Senator BEGICH. Who appoints or how does that person get selected? 

Mr. LEW. In this case, when Nat Gandhi decided to retire, the 

Mayor actually asked former Mayor Tony Williams, who was the 

first CFO, and Alice Rivlin to co-chair a search committee, and 

they brought in an executive recruiter, and there was about maybe 

eight or so prominent citizens in the District. Many private executives were on this committee, the search committee, and they did 

a national search, and they found several candidates, finalists. Of 

the three finalists, the Mayor interviewed them and then chose 

one, and the new CFO just really began working about a month 

ago, Jeff DeWitt from Arizona. 

Senator BEGICH. So they can put them in, but they cannot 

take—— 

Mr. DAVIS. They cannot take him out, so—— 

Senator BEGICH. That is the question. 

Mr. DAVIS. Exactly, and that has made all the difference in the 

world. You get balls and strikes called fairly. It is not political. 

But, look, if the city does not balance its budget, the Control 

Board comes into power. 

Senator BEGICH. Right. 

Mr. DAVIS. That is huge leverage. We rearranged the city services. It operates more like a city. They were doing a lot of State 

functions before in the criminal justice area, with prisons and those 

kind of things. We got rid of the unfunded pension liability that the 

city had. It was billions of dollars hanging over its neck. 

Ms. NORTON. That was proposed by—— 

Mr. DAVIS. They got a bad deal with the bidding, but Congress 

straightened out the bad deal they had given the city, I guess is 

the best way to put it. But, by and large, the voters have also 

shared some responsibility. If you take a look at the quality of people running and so on, it is not all perfect. I come from Virginia. 

It is not all perfect in Virginia either. [Laughter.] 

But it has worked very well. 

Senator BEGICH. Right. 

Mr. DAVIS. And you have gotten responsible people, and the proof 

is in the pudding. You take a look at the tax base. It has expanded. 

The budget is growing. The population is growing. It was actually 

decreasing 20 years ago. They were losing businesses and losing 

people. 

Senator BEGICH. Businesses are investing. 

Mr. DAVIS. Absolutely. It is a reinvestment. As you know, the tax 

base is everything to a city. 

Senator BEGICH. That is right. 

Mr. DAVIS. And they have had leadership now that recognizes 

the tax base is not here automatically. You have to attract it. So 

it is a number of things that have brought the city to where it is, 

but it is a vibrant city. And you can drive around not just the 

downtown by the Verizon Center, but there are nodes all over the 
16 

city that are redeveloping quickly, and I think the prospects continue in that way. 

Senator BEGICH. Let me ask you, Mr. Lew, what Congressman 

Davis just said made me think about it, and what Congresswoman 

Norton said, in regards to the financial condition. Give me a 

sense—first, so I understand your overall budget—what percentage 

is locally driven dollars versus—— 

Mr. LEW. I would say about two-thirds. Our overall budget is close to $10 to $12 billion. About two-thirds of it consists of local 

monies, and—— 

Senator BEGICH. So fees, property taxes, sales taxes—— 

Mr. LEW. Income tax, sales tax, real estate taxes. The rest of it, 

the Federal dollars, generally are the same kind of Federal dollars 

that would be—— 

Senator BEGICH. In any city. 

Mr. LEW. For any city or any State. 

Senator BEGICH. Grants and things like that. 

Mr. LEW. Right, yes. 

Senator BEGICH. And you mentioned the AAA bond rating that 

D.C. has. I am assuming back in the 1990s it was not that—— 

Mr. LEW. It was DDD, which is junk bond status. 

Senator BEGICH. Yes, junk bond status. 

Mr. LEW. And I think at that time there was, as opposed to $1.5 billion in the surplus, there was like minus $500 million. So the 

spread has actually been $2 billion. 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I ought to say that while that had 

something to do with the management of the city, it had everything 

to do with the fact that the city then was paying not only for $5 

billion in pension liability that the Federal Government had accrued pre- Home Rule; it was also paying for state functions that 

no city in the United States paid for. It continues to pay for some 

State functions. But the Revitalization Act that Tom Davis and I 

worked on took some State functions from the District of Columbia, 

and that plus lifting the $5 billion pension liability from pre- Home 

Rule DC helped lift the city immediately out of its dire straits. 

Senator BEGICH. Very good. Congressman Davis. 

Mr. DAVIS. And the expanded tax base has made a huge difference, too, in terms of the city revenue. 

Mr. LEW. Yes. As Congressman Davis mentioned, we have roughly 1,200 new residents every month joining the District. 

Senator BEGICH. Wow. 

Mr. LEW. And, many professional, educated, dual-career families 

are moving in, and so I think it has also helped. Basically you see 

it throughout the city, strollers and children, and the school system 

is actually seeing—for, I do not know, maybe over a decade or 

more, two decades, the school population was declining and declining and declining. Now it is actually going the other direction. 

Senator BEGICH. I am assuming when you do the work with Wall 

Street with regards to bonds and other things, you are part of that 

equation, or you at least are aware of some of the activity that 

goes—— 

Mr. LEW. Yes, generally the delegation is the Mayor, the Chairman of the Council, the Chairman of the Finance Committee. 

Senator BEGICH. Right. 
17 

Mr. LEW. Eric Goulet, who is sitting in the back, our Budget Director, and I. 

Senator BEGICH. OK. 

Mr. LEW. And the City Administrator and I are part of this annual pilgrimage to Wall Street. 

Senator BEGICH. All right. I am assuming—and I kind of heard 

the comments. I just want to put it on the record again from your 

perspective as part of that team. I am assuming in the world of 

Wall Street that the more stability, certainty with your budgetary 

revenue streams or control that you have, makes them much more 

comfortable in the long term for working with you folks. 

Mr. LEW. Definitely. 

Senator BEGICH. Is that something that comes up in the conversations when you do your—and I know these experiences as 

mayor. We would have to go to New York. 

Mr. LEW. Yes. And even the fact that, last year, when other cities 

were still suffering from the recession, we were getting an upgrade, 

and hopefully this year we will get another upgrade. So the city is 

doing really well. The city is, and I think the Washington Post reported maybe 2 years ago that operations, city operations, and 

services had improved over a 10-year period from the time when 

Tony Williams was Mayor and then on through Adrian Fenty and 

then the first part of Vincent Gray’s term. And they actually indicated that the first part of the Vincent Gray administration in 2011 

showed a spike. There was actually a greater improvement in spite 

of the fact that we were furloughing staff, and we had a larger 

budget pressures, and our reserves were spent significantly down 

at that point. And we have been able to—between 2011 and this 

year, we have been able to go from 700-something million reserve 

back to north of $1.5 billion. 

Senator BEGICH. Very good. Let me ask, if I can, Robert Vogel, 

I do not want this to be an uncomfortable question, but I need to 

ask it so I understand it, and I am thinking from my own perspective as a former mayor. When you went into the shutdown, when 

we all went into the shutdown here, you had by law to do certain 

things. But here is what we heard as the biggest complaint. If you 

can respond to this. It is one thing to close down or fence off a 

building, a structure, because you do not want people wandering in 

there, you do not know what is going to happen. But in actual 

park—just so you know, I could never imagine doing that in the 

city of Anchorage. I could imagine fencing off the skate facility so 

people are not inside there and doing things, or the recreational 

buildings, but the actual park is what it is. Do you think—and I 

might give you an easy out on this question. I mean, the way that 

was handled caused a lot of controversy, and I want to say I agree 

with the people on this one, that this was problematic. Do you 

think and are you looking at this—not that we ever want to think 

about a shutdown again. No one wants to. But are you thinking of 

a different approach? I understand the law as interpreted—no disrespect to lawyers. I am not a lawyer. I never want to be one. They 

always take the more conservative role on everything. But I also 

know lawyers have two opinions based on the client. And so it 

seemed like there was not some push here with whoever said the 

interpretation of the law is we have to fence these things off. In 
18 

reality, I get the building structure issue. There is a liability there. 

But walking across a park, no one is going to pick up, the World 

War II Veteran Memorial concrete and walk off with it. 

I have been to the midnight tours of these parks. They are not 

shut down. They are open all the time. We are not staffing them 

at those levels. We have some security to a certain extent, but very 

limited, to say the least, on those. So help me understand that. 

And then what is the plan in the future? Because what happens 

with you affects the D.C.—I mean, when you have visitors coming 

that want to spend money in the economy, they now do not have 

a venue to go to. The only venue they would come to, to be frank 

with you, is our office, which was OK, but they were not happy. 

So help me understand that. 

Mr. VOGEL. Surely. It was difficult, and, of course, we will continue to evaluate that. I think I should clarify that we did not 

close—we intentionally worked very hard to make sure that we 

were inconveniencing the public at a minimum that we could. We 

do get over 25 million visits on the National Mall each year, and 

during this time period of the closure, we estimate that in a normal 

October time period like that we would get over 1 million visitors. 

So that huge number of visitors going to key memorials is problematic. We do have staffing 24 hours a day. We have rangers on 

duty until usually 10 or 11 o’clock at night and U.S. Park Police 

all the time. And I would say that late at night our visitation levels 

are much lower. 

So our ability to protect the memorials, which clearly is our mandate by Congress, we felt really did require us to barricade in key 

locations, and that we needed to put the barricades so that, hundreds of thousands of people would not come into the sites and 

cause real impacts to them. I mean, vandalism certainly could be 

an impact, but certainly trash and the need to use restrooms and 

our fountains were not on, and there is a key staffing requirement 

to provide that legal mandate to protect the memorials. 

These are national treasures that are entrusted to our care, and 

we take the responsibility very seriously. We made sure throughout 

the National Mall that we had key locations. We said let us not 

make people walk five blocks to get around the National Mall. 

Technically the entire National Mall and Memorial Parks was 

closed to the public, but I think we tried to work very closely to 

allow people to cross over The Mall and recognize that people were 

going to enter The Mall, but try to keep them out of the key memorials to protect them. And I would just use an example of last 

year’s unfortunate paint-splashing vandalism of the Lincoln Memorial. And so we do feel that that large concentration of visitors 

which we would have that time of year would really be problematic 

without our staff, which is very critical to protect the resources. 

Senator BEGICH. Are you re-examining your policy? 

Mr. VOGEL. I do not think we are actively re-examining it. I 

think certainly if we went through the shutdown again we would 

evaluate what worked and what did not. I think that we hope we 

will not be in the situation again. I do feel like we tried very hard 

to make prudent decisions that are defensible for protection of the 

resources. 
19 

Senator BEGICH. I appreciate that. Thank you. I would make one 

point. When the vandalism did occur, we had full staffing and capacity. 

Mr. VOGEL. That is correct. 

Senator BEGICH. So not always when fully staffed can we prevent 

things. 

Mr. VOGEL. That is correct. 

Senator BEGICH. As a former manager or mayor, we had lots of 

parks, and yet you cannot manage them all in the sense of full 

oversight on them, and you are going to have some issues. But I 

would hope that—let us hope there is not another shutdown, but 

in the hopes of another shutdown that we have more review of how 

we approach this, recognizing that they are national treasures, but 

at the same time, no one is coming in and walking away with the 

Martin Luther King monument. It is a little large. But at the same 

time, access is what makes these parks very valuable, and most 

people are very respectful of the parks. We do have some, as you 

know—and I have seen it—where they are not too respectful. But 

generally we do. Open or closed, they are going to respect the parks 

because they are so unique in their own way. 

But I would just encourage you, as you guys think of the long 

term, what is the next step if there is ever one, and if there is 

something that we need to do here, you should let us know. And 

I would be happy to work with you folks on that. 

Mr. VOGEL. Thank you. 

Senator BEGICH. Let me ask a couple more just real quick, and 

then we will close out the hearing. Congresswoman, the bill that 

Congressman Issa is moving forward, you had mentioned there are 

some issues that might be on the bill. Is that something that you 

could at some point—I know my guess is our staff has talked to 

yours to a certain extent, but would you be willing to pursue that 

with us to understand what those concerns that you have on that 

specific bill with Congressman Issa in regards to budget autonomy? 

And I would also say that on the other piece, I could not imagine 

me sending my local ordinances to the State legislature for their 

rejection or review. It would be ridiculous. First off, having them 

do something in 30 days is in itself a miracle, and here it is a real 

miracle. So that would be—just to let you know, that is something 

I would be interested in pursuing further with you. I think especially because the exercising of it has been so limited, and it was 

mentioned by both of you that the capacity for Congress to interject 

itself through the appropriations process is really where it has been 

done in the past anyway. So why have another layer? 

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased that you would 

be willing to do that. Chairman Issa has worked on the budget autonomy bill. He has not worked on this bill as much—— 

Senator BEGICH. Correct. 

Ms. NORTON [continuing]. Although I am talking with him about 

this bill. And his concern is that he is an authorizer. And, of 

course, I say, what has been the case, it is the appropriators who, 

if they want to do damage, it is they who have done it. 

Senator BEGICH. Right. 

Ms. NORTON. So he had tried something a little more complicated 

as a way to approach it, but since I have introduced this bill, he 
20 

has indicated he is open to talking with me again about how to do 

it. So I would very much like to talk with your staff. 

Senator BEGICH. Fantastic. Thank you. 

Let me end on this. One, first, thank you all. I wanted to have 

this hearing basically on the shutdown, but also on what we do to 

solve it, and it is clear to me that, especially after this hearing, the 

way to approach this is creating budget autonomy is the first step. 

That would give the flexibility and authority of the District to operate, at least two-thirds of their resources, or more, depending on 

the full budget and how it is being used or obligated at the time. 

Also down the road, the whole issue of the layover power, to deal 

with that at some point. But I will tell you, I am a supporter of 

budget autonomy. I think it is important. I mean, you have just 

confirmed it even more to me. I had my instincts as a former 

mayor, but now sitting in this role, I am even more convinced after 

today that what inaction or action we take here in Congress should 

not impact a city at the magnitude we do with your city. 

Now, we get it that if we do not move money for certain grants 

and so forth, there is going to be some impact. That happened, as 

I stated, in Alaska in many ways. But it should not cause a shutdown of a city, especially right here where it is critical to keep the 

functions moving. So I will be anxious to work on preparing something that we can bring forward, because the faster we do this, to 

be frank with you, one less thing Congress has to meddle in that 

they do not need to meddle in. That is just my own view. Do what 

we do best, which I am still struggling to figure out those pieces 

of what we do best, figure out what we do not do well, and let the 

people who are doing it well—and you have put in the record some 

really good information, especially Mr. Lew in regards to the financial issues that continues to be problems for other cities in some 

ways. And when you about a surplus, I think every city would love 

to have a surplus at the size that you have, and that is a very positive statement. And a AAA bond rating, that is like platinum to a 

city. That is just property taxpayer money being saved every day 

without that kind of rating. So thank you for the information. 

Unless there are some additional comments folks might have, I 

want to go ahead and close it, but if anyone else has any last comments I am happy to open up the mic to you. 

[No response.] 

Very good. Well, thank you all very much. Thanks for taking the 

time. At this time the meeting is adjourned. Thank you. 

[Whereupon, at 3:35 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 
(21) 

A P P E N D I X 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 

Æ