[Congressional Record Volume 144, Number 105 (Thursday, July 30, 1998)]
[House]
[Pages H6826-H6827]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CONVENTION CENTER AND SPORTS ARENA AUTHORIZATION 
                             ACT AMENDMENTS

  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the 
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight be discharged from further 
consideration of the bill (H.R. 4237) to amend the District of Columbia 
Convention Center and Sports Arena Authorization Act of 1995 to revise 
the revenues and activities covered under such Act, and for other 
purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  The Clerk read the bill, as follows:

                               H.R. 4237

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. REVENUES AND ACTIVITIES COVERED UNDER WASHINGTON 
                   CONVENTION CENTER AND SPORTS ARENA 
                   AUTHORIZATION ACT OF 1995.

       (a) In General.--Section 101 of the District of Columbia 
     Convention Center and Sports Arena Authorization Act of 1995 
     (DC Code, sec. 47-396.1) is amended by striking subsections 
     (a) and (b) and inserting the following:
       ``The fourth sentence of section 446 of the District of 
     Columbia Home Rule Act (DC Code, sec. 47-304) shall not apply 
     with respect to the expenditure or obligation of any revenues 
     of the Washington Convention Center Authority for any purpose 
     authorized under the Washington Convention Center Authority 
     Act of 1994 (D.C. Law 10-188).''.
       (b) Rule of Construction Regarding Revenue Bond 
     Requirements Under Home Rule Act.--Nothing in the District of 
     Columbia Convention Center and Sports Arena Authorization Act 
     of 1995 may be construed to affect the application of section 
     490 of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act to any revenue 
     bonds, notes, or other obligations issued by the Council of 
     the District of Columbia or by any District instrumentality 
     to which the Council delegates its authority to issue revenue 
     bonds, notes or other obligations under such section.

     SEC. 2. WAIVER OF CONGRESSIONAL REVIEW OF WASHINGTON 
                   CONVENTION CENTER AUTHORITY FINANCING AMENDMENT 
                   ACT OF 1998.

       Notwithstanding section 602(c)(1) of the District of 
     Columbia Home Rule Act, the Washington Convention Center 
     Authority Financing Amendment Act of 1998 (D.C. Act 12-402) 
     shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  (Mr. DAVIS of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4237, which we have just 
passed, is a bill that permits the District of Columbia to move forward 
with a financing plan for the purpose of building a new state-of-the-
art convention center in downtown Washington.
  This bill authorizes the Washington Convention Center Authority, an 
independent agency, to issue bonds and waive the 30-day waiting period 
for the D.C. City Council enactment to go into effect. Its passage this 
evening is important so they can get immediate Senate consideration and 
be signed by the President, and we can be in the ground and starting 
construction the 1st of September.
  Our subcommittee has followed the effort to build a new convention 
center in downtown Washington with great interest. We think this is 
critical for the city to reestablish a tax base in downtown Washington, 
and working with the MCI Center, we will build, we think, a 
revitalization of the downtown area.
  Over time it is estimated that the situation only gets worse in terms 
of attracting tourism if we were to go with the existing center. The 
District of Columbia's existing Convention Center is now only the 30th 
largest in the country, and it can accommodate only approximately 55 
percent of national conventions and exhibition shows. That is a serious 
blow to the District's economy. A new convention center will provide 
much needed jobs for the city, and an increase in locally-generated 
local tax base revenue. It will boost morale for the entire region.
  I want to thank the General Accounting Office and the General 
Services Administration for their respective roles in analyzing the 
development of the financing plan for the new Washington Convention 
Center. Their thorough analysis has reinforced our confidence in 
permitting the District to move forward with this project.
  I also want to thank the District's Financial Control Board for their 
hard work and oversight on the development of this project. The Control 
Board is empowered to approve or disapprove all city borrowing, and 
this sign-off of the financial package I think gives everyone more 
confidence in its viability.
  After reviewing information from both the proponents and opponents of 
the project, our committee has unanimously approved the project, and 
the Control Board has, in effect, reported to Congress that all aspects 
of the project, including borrowing and costs, are compatible with the 
interests of the District of Columbia. The next step is for Congress to 
go ahead and pass this bill. Our action this evening is a giant step 
forward for the District.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  (Mr. MORAN of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support this 
legislation that moves the convention center forward for the District 
of Columbia. Frankly, having a world class convention center in the 
Washington metropolitan area is something that the entire region needs, 
and there are suburban jurisdictions that would have loved to have had 
this center within their jurisdiction. I can say, quite frankly, we had 
some great sites for it.
  But the fact is, it belongs in the center city. Had the business 
community, the residential community, the political community not 
gotten their act together they might have lost this, but this is a 
credit to the fact that there is that kind of symbiotic relationship 
that is acting in a constructive manner today, particularly the hotel, 
the restaurant, and the tourism industry.
  They deserve this convention center. Most importantly, the people of 
the District of Columbia deserve this convention center and all the 
economic benefits it will provide.
  I thank the gentleman who chairs the District of Columbia authorizing 
committee for moving this legislation forward at a rapid pace, and I 
look forward to the day that we can all go to this convention center 
and enjoy not only the center itself, but all the economic and social 
benefits it will bring to this great capital city.
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I also want to thank Tracy Cox 
and Peter Sirh of my staff for the staff work they have done on this.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to amend the D.C. 
Convention Center and Sports Arena Authorization Act of 1995 in order 
to enable the Washington Convention Center Authority (Authority) to 
finance revenue bonds for the cost of constructing a new convention 
center in downtown D.C. This legislation moves forward the hope and 
promise of the 1995 legislation for a sports arena and a convention 
center, twin centerpieces of economic development and jobs in the city 
and revitalization of downtown in the District. The quick and efficient 
construction of the MCI Center and the new jobs and revenue the arena 
has brought to D.C. residents have encouraged the city to complete its 
work on a convention center, where the need has long been conceded.
  In every other city in the United States, this matter would not come 
before any but the local city council. Unfortunately, unlike every 
other city, the District does not have legislative

[[Page H6827]]

and budget autonomy and therefore cannot spend its own funds unless 
authorized by Congress.
  Extensive hearings in the D.C. City Council have been held on the 
underlying issues, with an informed and vigorous debate by members of 
the City Council. On June 16, the City Council approved legislation to 
finance the new convention center, and on July 7, the City Council 
passed a bond inducement resolution to approve the Authority's proposal 
for the issuance of dedicated tax revenue bonds to finance construction 
of the convention center. On July 13, the D.C. Financial Responsibility 
and Management Assistance Authority (Control Board) gave its final 
approval to the financing plan for the project, leaving only 
congressional authorization, which is necessary for the District to 
proceed to the bond market.
  On July 15, the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia heard 
testimony from Mayor Marion Barry, City Council Chair Linda Cropp, City 
Council Member Charlene Drew Jarvis, Control Board Chair Andrew 
Brimmer, Authority President Terry Golden, and representatives of the 
General Accounting Office (GAO) and the General Services Administration 
(GSA) on the financial aspects of the project. After hearing this 
testimony, I am satisfied that the Authority is ready to proceed with 
the issuance of bonds to secure financing, allowing the Authority to 
begin to break ground possibly as early as September. Considering the 
many years' delay and the millions in lost revenue to the District, 
ground breaking cannot come too soon.
  Although the GAO testified that the cost of constructing the new 
convention center would be $708 million, $58 million more than the $650 
million estimate, this $58 million is not attributable to the cost of 
the center but to certain costs that should be borne by entities other 
than the Authority. For example, vendors who will operate in the 
facility are anticipated to contribute $17.7 million in equipment 
costs; the District government will provide $10 million for utility 
relocation from expected Department of Housing and Urban Development 
grants; and the President has requested $25 million in his budget to 
expand the Mount Vernon Square Metro station.
  The GSA testified that the agency had worked closely with the 
Authority to keep the costs of the project down. With the GSA's 
assistance, the Authority secured a contract with a construction 
manager for a ``Guaranteed Maximum Price,'' whereby the private 
contractor is given incentives to keep costs down and assumes the risk 
for any cost overruns.
  Mayor Marion Barry testified, among other things, regarding the 
promise of additional jobs for District residents. He said that the new 
convention center would create nearly 1,000 new construction jobs, and 
that once the facility is completed, it would generate nearly 10,000 
jobs in the hospitality and tourism industries. He testified that, 
using some of the approaches that were successful with the MCI Center, 
special training and goals for jobs for D.C. residents would be met.
  The District of Columbia Subcommittee hearing was not a reprise of 
the lengthy D.C. City Council hearings, and, on home rule grounds, did 
not attempt to repeat issues of local concern. However, since the 
issues of financing and bonding before the Congress implicate other 
areas, the Subcommittee asked extensive questions and received 
testimony concerning many issues, including location, size, and job 
creation, in addition to the strictly financial issues.
  This convention center has an unusual financial base, which I believe 
other cities might do well to emulate. The financing arises from a 
proposal by the hotel and restaurant industry for taxes on their own 
industry that would not have been available to the city for any other 
purpose. The proposal was made at a time when the city's need for 
revenue and jobs has been especially pressing. For many years, the 
District had been unable to attract large conventions. Not only has the 
District lost billions as a result; the local hotel and restaurant 
industry has suffered from the absence of a large convention center. It 
is estimated that the inadequacy of the current facility led to the 
loss of $300 million in revenue from lost conventions in 1997 alone. My 
legislation will enable the District to compete for its market share in 
the convention industry for the first time in many years.
  The delay in building an adequate convention center has been very 
costly to the District. In a town dominated by tax exempt property, 
especially government buildings, a convention center is one of the few 
projects that can bring significant revenues. To that end, the District 
intends to break ground this September. I ask for expeditious passage 
on this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, was read 
the third time, and passed, and a motion to reconsider was laid on the 
table.

                          ____________________