[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 1]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages 312-313]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



      INTRODUCTION OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEMOCRACY 2000 ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                       HON. ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON

                      of the district of columbia

                    in the house of representatives

                       Wednesday, January 6, 1999

  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the first bill in my 
D.C. Democracy Now Package. The bills to follow, as many as half a 
dozen, will be introduced at appropriate times throughout the 106th 
Congress.
  The purpose of the first of these bills, the District of Columbia 
Democracy 2000 Act (D.C. Democracy 2000) is to ensure that the new city 
administration has sufficient control of the District government to be 
held accountable in preparation for the expiration of the control 
period. Among the other bills that will be included in the Package are: 
D.C. Budget Autonomy Act; D.C. Legislative Autonomy Act; D.C. City 
Employee Tax Fairness Act (Commuter Tax for District Government 
Employees); and Delegate Vote Restoration.
  I am introducing D.C. Democracy 2000 first because it is the most 
urgent. This bill is essential to assure the stable transition to full 
self-government already begun by the District of Columbia Financial 
Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority. The heart of D.C. 
Democracy 2000 is the early return of Home Rule, allowing the Authority 
to expire a full year ahead of schedule. At the time that the Authority 
Act was passed, the District's insolvency led the Congress to estimate 
that it would take four years of balanced budgets to achieve the 
necessary stability. However, the District's reforms have far 
outstripped the estimate of Congress. It now seems clear that by Fiscal 
Year 2000 the District shall have had three consecutive years of 
balanced budgets. If the failure to achieve balanced budgets could 
delay the return of Home Rule, it should follow that the prudence 
reflected in continuous years of surpluses should be equally 
recognized. Further delay is especially unwarranted in light of the 
continued oversight of the City Council and Congress.
  The District has just revolutionized its political culture by 
election of a new Mayor who earned his stripes as a tenacious Chief 
Financial Officer who cut budgets, prevented overspending, and helped 
create surpluses. To match the new Mayor, a new City Council has 
already shown a new, strict approach to oversight that holds the 
executive and the city agencies accountable. Moreover, the District has 
used most of its surplus revenues to pay down its accumulated deficit. 
As a result, the District is expected to eliminate its operating 
deficit without using the authority to borrow, that Congress granted 
the city in the Revitalization Package in 1997. This is performance 
that not only deserves recognition, it is performance that deserves 
encouragement by the return of authority that was stripped away only 
because of a fiscal crisis. Needless to say, it would lift the spirits 
of District residents to begin the Year 2000 with Home Rule restored.
  The bill also includes a section that would give the Mayor authority 
to hire and fire department heads. This section carries out the purpose 
of the Authority Act ``to ensure the most efficient and effective 
delivery of services, by the District government during a period of 
fiscal emergency.'' P.L. 104-8, Title I Sec. 2(b)(2). On January 2, 
Alice Rivlin, for the Authority, signed a memorandum of agreement 
delegating authority to the Mayor to run the District government to the 
fullest extent allowed by existing law. Viewed from the front lines of 
the District government's present progress, the Authority's considered 
judgment was that a transition to Home Rule through the delegation of 
power to the new Mayor was necessary in advance of the transfer of 
ultimate power at the end of the control period; a clean line of 
reporting authority unmistakably identifying the responsible officials 
was necessary for efficient and effective government operational 
reform; and Mayor Williams, in his role as Chief Financial Officer, had 
already demonstrated his capacity to administer complicated operations.

[[Page 313]]

  This section amends existing law to complete a transfer of power that 
the Authority desired but could not make because of the wording of the 
statute. The Authority transferred to the Mayor its jurisdiction over 
nine operating agencies, but believed it was unable to return that 
authority to hire and fire department heads. In returning this power, 
this section seeks to enhance and facilitate the Mayor's ability to 
control managers. It eliminates the possibility of an illusion of an 
appeal to a higher authority beyond the Mayor to acquire or retain a 
position.
  The advantage of having a government that knows that it and it alone 
will be fully accountable cannot be overestimated in a democracy. 
Whatever justification some may have found for the denial of self-
government has been stripped away by the growing fiscal health of the 
District government and its prudence in management of its finances and 
operations. Beyond securing more revenue, city officials have already 
shown that they know what to do with it. Their decision to use surplus 
revenues to pay down the city's accumulated deficit demonstrates they 
can and will make tough financial choices. In the face of the 
sacrifices that District residents have made and the unanticipated 
surpluses that have been produced, there is no justification for 
delaying a return to coherent and fully accountable self-government.

                          ____________________