[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 2]
[House]
[Pages 2124-2125]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




        DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA MANAGEMENT RESTORATION ACT OF 1999

  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the 
Committee on Government Reform be discharged from further consideration 
of the bill (H.R. 433) to restore the management and personnel 
authority of the Mayor of the District of Columbia, 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?
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, although I do 
not intend to object, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Davis) for the purpose of explaining the bill.
  Mr. DAVIS of Virginia. Let me say, Mr. Speaker, this is a new era in 
the District of Columbia; and it is my strong belief that the time has 
come to shift substantial authority from the Control Board back to the 
city's elected mayor and give the elected mayor the greater flexibility 
he has sought over top personnel. This bill gives Mayor Williams the 
tools he needs to do the job.
  H.R. 433 does not alter the time period or the conditions for the 
Control Board to function in an active phase. The bill takes nothing 
away from the Control Board's ability to intervene if necessary during 
a control period which still exists, but it does give the mayor direct 
control over the reporting and the hiring authority of some of his top 
personnel.
  If we want democracy to succeed, we need to allow the elected 
leadership in the cities to start making decisions, standing behind 
those decisions, without being second-guessed every step of the way.
  My thanks also to the gentlewoman from Maryland (Mrs. Morella) for 
being the original cosponsor in the legislation, along with the 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), and of course 
to my friend the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) and the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Horn) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Scarborough), who I am requesting be added as sponsors today.
  The Congressional Budget Office has certified this bill would not 
affect the Federal budget. I would urge passage of H.R. 433.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time under my reservation, I 
would like to say a few words in support of this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, my special thanks to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Burton), the chairman, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the 
ranking member, and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) for the 
priority they have each given to H.R. 433.
  Our bill returns full legal authority over nine agencies to the Mayor 
and unfettered authority to confirm the Mayor's appointees to the City 
Council. Both Mayor Tony Williams and the council will be able to carry 
out their responsibilities as elected officials without risk of being 
overruled.
  It is important to note that this House was not responsible for 
withdrawing this authority. A Senator's attachment to the President's 
all-important revitalization package that was incorporated into the 
1997 Balanced Budget Act was responsible.
  It is now appropriate for the House to initiate action to devolve 
democratic control to locally-elected officials, and all indications 
are that the Senate is prepared to do the same and empower the new 
Mayor and the revitalized City Council.
  The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) deserves credit for carving 
H.R. 433 out of my D.C. Democracy 2000 Act. H.R. 433 is the first part 
of that act. The chairman and I are in agreement that the second part 
of the act to retire the Control Board a year early must await the 
building of a track record by the new Mayor and council.
  I thank the House leadership and the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. 
Burton) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis) for bringing H.R. 
433 to the floor as one of the first bills of the 106th Congress. In 
doing so, the House has shown, as nothing else could, that this body is 
prepared to build a new relationship with the District of Columbia.
  I want to thank Speaker Dennis Hastert, Democratic Leader Dick 
Gephardt, and Chairman Tom Davis for their leadership in bringing the 
``District of Columbia Management Restoration Act of 1999'' to the 
House floor today. This bill incorporates key provisions of my bill, 
H.R. 214, the District of Columbia Democracy 2000 Act (D.C. Democracy 
2000),

[[Page 2125]]

which return to the Office of the Mayor authority over the city's nine 
largest agencies and the ability to hire and fire senior managers in 
the government, and return to the City Council full authority to 
approve mayoral appointees without control board intervention. I am 
especially grateful to Mr. Davis for taking Section 3 of D.C. Democracy 
2000, the only section that is ripe for consideration at this time. The 
bill accomplishes this transfer of power through repeal of the 
Faircloth attachment to the District of Columbia Revitalization and 
Self-Government Improvement Act of 1997, which had vested control of 
the management reform of the city's nine largest agencies with the 
District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance 
Authority (Authority).
  The purpose of the District of Columbia Management Restoration Act of 
1999 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. This bill 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 2nd, Alice Rivlin, for the Authority, signed a memorandum of 
agreement (MOA) 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.
  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 and, in effect, to place in law the MOA. The Authority 
transferred to the Mayor its jurisdiction over nine operating agencies, 
but believed it was unable to return the authority to hire and fire 
department heads. In returning this power, the bill 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.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill crucial to the continued 
revitalization of the nation's capital.
  Mr. Speaker, continuing my reservation of objection, I yield to the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran) for a brief statement.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, this is the culmination really of 
years of determination and dedication on the part of the delegate and 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) and of the 
chairman of the D.C. authorizing committee, the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Davis).
  This is in no way critical of the D.C. Financial Control Board, but 
it is the culmination of a vision. It had to start with fiscal 
responsibility. It had to be bolstered by economic opportunity. But it 
also had to include responsible stewardship.
  We have that responsible stewardship, that leadership, in Mayor 
Williams. This is a reflection of the fact that those who have worked 
tirelessly for the District of Columbia truly believe in democracy, 
truly believe that the citizens of the District of Columbia are capable 
of governing themselves.
  This gives them that opportunity, and if in the future we hope to 
hold the D.C. government responsible for its actions, we can only do 
that by giving them the authority to make those decisions. You cannot 
have one without the other. You cannot hold them responsible without 
giving them the authority to make decisions on their own. This gives 
them that authority.
  This is the least we can do for the District of Columbia, and, again, 
this is what it was all about. It happened a lot sooner than many 
people expected, but I know that it is what the gentlewoman from the 
District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) had every confidence would occur, as 
did the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Davis).
  I want to particularly thank them. As I started my remarks thanking 
them, I conclude my remarks by thanking them and I thank those who have 
worked along with them to ensure that the District of Columbia will one 
day be the jewel of our democracy, the true capital city of our great 
Nation.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pease). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  The Clerk read the bill, as follows:

                                H.R. 433

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

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``District of Columbia 
     Management Restoration Act of 1999''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds as follows:
       (1) Among the major problems of the District of Columbia 
     government has been the failure to clearly delineate 
     accountability.
       (2) The statute establishing the District of Columbia 
     Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority 
     proved necessary to enable the District to regain financial 
     stability and management control.
       (3) The District has performed significantly better than 
     the Congress had anticipated at the time of the passage of 
     the Authority statute.
       (4) The necessity for a financial authority has resulted in 
     a diffusion of responsibility between the Mayor, the Council, 
     and the Authority pending the time when the District 
     government would assume the home rule status quo ante.
       (5) This lack of clear lines of reporting authority, in 
     turn, has led to some redundancy and confusion about 
     accountability and authority.
       (6) The Authority statute requires the Authority to 
     ``ensure the most efficient and effective delivery of 
     services, including public safety services, by the District 
     government'' and to ``assist the District government in . . . 
     ensuring the appropriate and efficient delivery of 
     services''.
       (7) With the coming of a new administration led by Mayor 
     Anthony Williams, the Authority has taken the first step to 
     ensure the accountability that will be necessary at the 
     expiration of the control period by delegating day-to-day 
     operations over city agencies previously under control of the 
     Authority to the Mayor.
       (8) The Congress agrees that the best way to ensure clear 
     and unambiguous authority and full accountability is for the 
     Mayor to have full authority over city agencies so that 
     citizens, the Authority, and the Congress can ascertain 
     responsibility.
       (9) The transition of authority to the new administration 
     will take nothing from the Authority's power to intervene 
     during a control period.

     SEC. 3. RESTORATION OF MANAGEMENT AND PERSONNEL AUTHORITY OF 
                   MAYOR OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

       (a) In General.--Subtitle B of title XI of the Balanced 
     Budget Act of 1997 (DC Code, sec. 47-395.1 et seq.) is 
     repealed.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 1604(f)(2)(B) of the 
     Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 (Public Law 105-34; 111 Stat. 
     1099) is repealed.

  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.

                          ____________________