2005 District of Columbia Omnibus Authorization Act

2005 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA OMNIBUS AUTHORIZATION ACT -- (House of Representatives - December 14, 2005)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank my friend from Nevada for sitting in for our good friend, the chair of the committee, Mr. Davis, who has worked so closely with me on the 2005 District of Columbia Omnibus Authorization Act on a home rule basis. I thank Chairman Davis also for getting this important bill to the floor before we adjourn this month and for his leadership on the bill.

The D.C. Omnibus Authorization Act is a welcome committee innovation designed to achieve greater efficiency in considering District of Columbia matters, most of which are of little importance or concern to Congress but must come here only because they, or similar issues, appear in the D.C. City Charter and cannot become D.C. law until sanctioned by congressional action. It is very wasteful, but that is the way it operates.

All of the provisions in this bill have been passed or approved by the District of Columbia. Of the many provisions in the act, three are particularly important: One, a provision allowing greater budget flexibility for the City to carry out necessary business; two, a section permitting the District to spend more of its reserve funds; and, three, strengthening the Chief Financial Officer.

First, the bill alters a semiannual requirement that the District come to Congress to become part of the Federal supplemental before the City may spend taxing revenue that is collected from District of Columbia taxpayers after the annual appropriation bill has been enacted.

I am grateful that the appropriators, Chairmen LEWIS and COCHRAN, and District of Columbia chairs and ranking members KNOLLENBERG, OLVER, BROWNBACK and LANDRIEU have agreed with the authorizers that this change is beneficial both to the Congress and to the District.

Although funds inevitably come in to any local jurisdiction or any State all year as taxes are paid by residents and businesses, D.C. cannot spend these funds for vital services, even though similar expenditures have been approved by Congress in the prior appropriation bill. This limitation applies to any unauthorized amount, even bonds the City must issue.

We saw the perils of this requirement when there was a fear that the District's bonds for the baseball stadium would be held up.

The press, seeing the D.C. baseball stadium in the 2005 war supplemental, repeatedly and gleefully reported that Congress, not D.C., was building a baseball stadium and had put this provision in a vital bill intended to fund defense. This provision also removes the possibility of such unintended effect.

Of great importance to the greater flexibility of both governments, this section moves the District of Columbia toward the long-time goal of budget autonomy over its own taxpayer-raised funds because it allows the District to spend up to 6 percent of its own money between appropriation bills without coming back to Congress midyear during the supplemental process I have just described.

Under existing law and constitutional interpretation, congressional jurisdiction to change any D.C. matter remains, as always, under this provision, and under this provision Congress loses nothing while the District of Columbia gains much that is necessary to run a big city.

Second, because of its prudence, the District now has emergency reserve and contingency funds that would be the envy of most jurisdictions, and Congress has reinforced these savings with unique requirements not found anywhere else in this country. In the meantime, residents watch the neglect of basic services while the District grows an ever-larger reserve fund that cannot be tapped for any reason. There is special outrage that many of our children attend dilapidated public schools, some as old as I am and that I remember well when I was in school here as a child. This provision authorizes the District to borrow up to 50 percent of the fund balance from the emergency and contingency reserve funds through the end of 2007 provided that the fund is reimbursed within 9 months of the borrowing or by the end of the fiscal year in which the money is borrowed.

Third, although the city's financial officer is a city, and not a Federal, official and is appointed by the Mayor, the provision for this office is in the charter. Therefore, even the pending D.C. Council action to strengthen the CFO needs congressional sanction, even though the provision makes an already strong official even more independent by giving him a term of 5 years with dismissal only for cause by the Mayor subject to the approval of the council by resolution approved by at least two-thirds of its members.

The bill also confirms the CFO's personnel and procurement authority under D.C. law and confirms that the collective bargaining rights of CFO employees are preserved.

Finally, an important provision bears mentioning because it helps preserve the justice system in case of emergency. This provision allows the District courts to conduct business outside of the district in case of an emergency. I appreciate that the House has moved this important bill forward so it may obtain early passage in the Senate where its provisions have strong support.

Madam Speaker, I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

http://thomas.loc.gov