U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

57–789 PDF 2010

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

(II)

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York, Chairman

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri

DIANE E. WATSON, California

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts

JIM COOPER, Tennessee

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia

MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois

MARCY KAPTUR, Ohio

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

PATRICK J. KENNEDY, Rhode Island

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

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

DARRELL E. ISSA, California

DAN BURTON, Indiana

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California

JIM JORDAN, Ohio

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona

JEFF FORTENBERRY, Nebraska

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah

AARON SCHOCK, Illinois

BLAINE LUETKEMEYER, Missouri

ANH ‘‘JOSEPH’’ CAO, Louisiana

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

Columbia

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri

GERALD E. CONNOLLY, Virginia

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California

ANH ‘‘JOSEPH’’ CAO, Louisiana

WILLIAM MILES, Staff Director

(III)

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

(1)

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:]

2

3

4

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.

5

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:]

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

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

22

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:]

23

24

25

26

27

28

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 21⁄2 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. NorVerDate 11-MAY-2000 18:18 Sep 09, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 U:\DOCS\57789.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
29

ton, 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

30

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:]

31

32

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

33

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

34

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:]

35

36

37

38

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. BeVerDate 11-MAY-2000 18:18 Sep 09, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 U:\DOCS\57789.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
39

cause 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:]

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

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 postControl 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.

53

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:]

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

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 budgVerDate 11-MAY-2000 18:18 Sep 09, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00071 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 U:\DOCS\57789.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
68

et 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:]

69

70

71

72

73

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

74

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:]

75

76

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

85

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.

86

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

87

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.

88

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

89

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

90

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 governVerDate 11-MAY-2000 18:18 Sep 09, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00094 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 U:\DOCS\57789.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
91

ment 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

92

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.

93

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.

94

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 govVerDate 11-MAY-2000 18:18 Sep 09, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00098 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 U:\DOCS\57789.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
95

ernment, 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.

96

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

97

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

98

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

99

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

100

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.

101

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

102

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:]

103

104

Æ