[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 120 (Monday, July 24, 1995)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1503-E1504]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


             THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BUDGET EFFICIENCY ACT

                                 ______


                       HON. ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON
                      of the district of columbia

                    in the house of representatives

                          Monday, July 24, 1995

  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing legislation of vital 
importance to the District Columbia in rebuilding the financial 
viability of the District. As my colleagues are well aware, the 
District is contending with a serious financial crisis. This bill 
allows the Mayor and the City Council to address some of the causes of 
the city's budget difficulties that are now outside of their reach with 
greater efficiency, flexibility, and fairness.
  This bill has three provisions that accomplish these purposes. First, 
the bill gives the Mayor the authority to reduce the appropriation for 
the judicial branch of the District government, if such a reduction is 
necessary to balance the District's budget. The Congress previously 
empowered the District to take similar steps with other independent 
agencies, including the board of education. However, unlike the case at 
other agencies, the judicial branch savings may only be directed in the 
annual appropriation total, not on a line-item basis within the budget 
itself. Thus, this bill treats the budget of the courts differently in 
recognition of the separation of powers and the independence of the 
courts.
  Second, the bill enables the District to decouple the rate of 
compensation for District of Columbia judges from that of Federal 
judges. No decrease in pay would occur, however. D.C. Superior Court 
and Court of Appeals judges are local, not Federal judges, and have no 
Federal jurisdiction. Because of home rule limitations, however, they 
are appointed by the President--though they are recommended by a panel 
of local residents. These local judges are paid entirely from the 
District budget, not from Federal funds. When District employees have 
taken pay cuts or had level pay for several years and very few have 
received raises, the judges serving the District have several times had 
increases in their salaries because their salaries are tied to the pay 
scale for Federal judges. To remedy this imbalance, the District of 
Columbia Council will determine the new rate of compensation for 
judges, as is usually the case with legislatures.
  Third, the bill gives the District greater leverage and flexibility 
to accomplish savings in the negotiation of contracts, such as 
procurement contracts. Presently, such agreements can be negotiated 
only on an annual basis. As a result, the District cannot enter into 
multiyear agreements that often have better terms. Because such 
contracts require significant commitments they will be evaluated by the 
District of Columbia Council, and will require a council resolution, 
two-thirds vote of members present and voting. If for any reason, the 
funds are not appropriated during a subsequent year of the contract, 
the contract would be canceled, preventing the District from being 
bound unreasonably.
  These components of the bill act together to strengthen the 
District's financial position. This bill is noncontroversial. Because 
it is an essential ingredient of the District's financial discipline 
and recovery, I ask for support and passage at the earliest time.
       Summary of the District of Columbia Budget Efficiency Act

       The Congress gave the ability to reduce the budgets of 
     independent agencies, including the Board of Education, if it 
     is required to balance the District budget. However, this 
     power did not include the District courts. This bill expands 
     that power to include the budget of the District courts. This 
     expansion of power does not affect the separation of powers 
     between the executive and legislative branches because it 
     does not give the Mayor power over the judicial salaries, but 
     only the budgets. The Mayor is required to notify the 
     District of Columbia courts of any proposed reductions in 
     their budget.
       The bill also amends the Home Rule Act to allow the D.C. 
     Council to establish the rate of compensation for judges in 
     District of Columbia courts. This severs the tie of D.C. 
     judges' salaries to those of federal judges.
       Additionally, the bill allows the District to form 
     multiyear contracts for goods and services in areas where 
     funds are appropriated annually. If the funds are not 
     appropriated in some subsequent year of the contract, the 
     contract is cancelled or terminated. Costs of cancellation or 
     termination are paid from sources limited to: appropriations 
     available for the contract's performance; appropriations 
     available for procurement of the acquisition type covered by 
     the contract that is not obligated; funds appropriated for 
     payment of such costs.
       Any such contract will require support of the Council by 
     resolution, a two-thirds vote of members present and voting. 
     Further, the contracts will be made pursuant to criteria 
     established by the Council.
section-by-section analysis--district of columbia budget efficiency act 
                                of 1994

                         Section 1. Short title

       Section 1(a) states that this Act may be cited as the 
     ``District of Columbia Budget Efficiency Act of 1995''.
       Section 1(b) amends the relevant provisions of the District 
     of Columbia Self-Government and Governmental Reorganization 
     Act by adding the following:
       The District of Columbia Self-Government and Government 
     Reorganization Act provides that whenever in the District of 
     Columbia Multiyear Financial Controls Act is referred to, the 
     reference will be considered to be made to that section of 
     other provision of the District of Columbia Self-Government 
     and Government Reorganization Act.

         Section 2. Budgetary control over independent agencies

       Section 2(a): Section 2(a) amends Section 47-301(b) of the 
     D.C. Code to include expenditures for District of Columbia 
     Courts and the Board of Education the submission of the 
     District's annual budget by adding the following section:
       Section 47-301(b) of the D.C. Code provides that the budget 
     submitted by the Mayor shall include, but is not limited to 
     recommended expenditures at a reasonable level for the 
     forthcoming fiscal year for the Council, the District of 
     Columbia Courts, the Board of Education, the District of 
     Columbia Auditor, the District of Columbia Board of Elections 
     and Ethics, the District of Columbia Judicial Nomination 
     Commission, the Zoning Commission of the District of 
     Columbia, the Public Service Commission, the Armory Board, 
     and the Commission on Judicial Disabilities and Tenure.
       Section 2(c): Section 2(c) allows the Mayor to balance the 
     budget by reducing the amount appropriated or otherwise made 

[[Page E1504]]
     available to independent agencies of the District of Columbia to reduce 
     the appropriation or amount if it is determined to be 
     necessary to balance the District's budget. These figures 
     must be submitted to the Council. It further requires that 
     the Mayor notify the District of Columbia courts of any 
     proposed reductions in their budgets.
       Section 2(d): Section 2(d) decouples the link between 
     District of Columbia court judges and federal court judges, 
     allowing the District of Columbia Council to establish the 
     rate of compensation for the judges.

             Section 3. Contracts extending beyond one year

       Section 3(a) allows the District to enter into multiyear 
     contracts for goods and services where funds are appropriated 
     on an annual fiscal year basis. These obligations are valid 
     only for the fiscal year appropriated.
       Section 3(b) allows multiyear contracts to be cancelled or 
     terminated if money is not appropriated in subsequent years. 
     In such an event, the cost of cancellation or termination is 
     to be paid from the following: (A) appropriations available 
     for the performance of such contract; (B) appropriations 
     available for procurement of the acquisition type covered by 
     the contract where not otherwise obligated or; (C) funds 
     appropriated for the payments of such costs.
       It additionally provides that contracts entered into under 
     this section are invalid unless the Council, by a two-thirds 
     vote of its members present and voting, authorizes such a 
     contract by resolution. Further, contracts under this 
     subsection are made pursuant to criteria established by act 
     of the Council.
     

                          ____________________