Jim Moran

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Conyers].

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Davis].

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Waters].

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia [Ms. Norton].

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, despite all the rhetoric, this amendment is not about vouchers. It is about choice: Whether the residents of the District of Columbia are able to choose their own government, are able to choose their own budget. Their democratically elected government did submit a budget. The mayor, the city council, the congressionally-created control board submitted a consensus budget. The other body agreed with that budget. All this substitute amendment does is it enables the House to agree with it so that the District of Columbia can run its own affairs. The chairman of the District of Columbia control board said that this bill, if it is approved as presented to the House, will further weaken the District of Columbia by severely undercutting the ability of the District of Columbia financial responsibility and management authority, the control board that the Congress set up to carry out the mandate of Congress, to restore the District's financial base and implement management reforms. That is all this amendment is all about. The gentlewoman cited the Washington Times. Here is The Washington Post. It says that this is the House at its worst on D.C. The House of Representatives need not do this to the Nation's Capital or to itself. The city needs an appropriations bill that will help it manage its own affairs competently as both a locality and the Nation's Capital. It does not need and cannot conceivably be helped in this effort to reform itself by what it calls the silly, showboating indulgences of Congressmen who act as if they have nothing else to do. We have something better to do. The gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. Taylor] certainly can do better than to submit this bill. Our House will be proud of the bill that we agreed to if we agree to this substitute amendment. We can get the bill enacted. We can give the money to the District and to the control board that we created to carry out their affairs according to their own priorities. That is all this is about. It is not about vouchers. It is about giving local government the authority that they deserve. We need to respect them and to respect the democratic process. That is all our amendment is all about. The alternative is not to have vouchers, the alternative is to have nothing, to have no bill. D.C. will not get its funding. D.C. will not be able to carry out its contracts. The control board we created will not be able to function. That is not fair. It is not right. It certainly is not what the Congress intended. Do not do this to our Nation's Capital, do not do this to the House of Representatives. Support this amendment. Do the right thing.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from California [Ms. Millender-McDonald]. (Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California [Mr. Martinez]. (Mr. MARTINEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MORAN of Virginia

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York [Mrs. Lowey]. (Mrs. LOWEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I do not have a lot of time to reserve.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, with that amount of time I really ought to reserve for rebuttal, would be my preference. Perhaps the gentleman from North Carolina would like to conclude or at least to use up a little more of his.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues to support the substitute amendment which gives us the Senate bill. The Senate bill means that we will have an enacted bill, we will do the right thing by the citizens of the District of Columbia and, in my opinion, the right thing by the Congress of the United States.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment in the nature of a substitute.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this is a very simple amendment. It simply substitutes the Senate version of the District of Columbia Appropriations Act for the bill that is being considered today on the House floor. There is one important exception. The substitute retains the language in the House bill that provides federally funded premium pay for District of Columbia police officers and fire fighters. This substitute amendment, Mr. Chairman, is not my creation, it is not that of the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], it is not that of the gentleman from Missouri [Mr. Gephardt], or that of any other Democratic Member. This substitute amendment was drafted by the Republican Senator from North Carolina, who is chairman of the Senate District of Columbia Appropriations Subcommittee. Mr. Chairman, as I was saying, the substitute that we are offering is the very same as the Senate bill that Mr. Faircloth and the Senate sponsored and which passed, just passed, the Senate floor. It was created by the congressionally created District of Columbia Control Board, working with the District of Columbia's mayor and the D.C. City Council. It was a consensus budget, and it was in accordance with all of the procedures that this Congressman stated be followed. The substitute balances the District's budget 1 year ahead of schedule. Think of that. The substitute we are asking for balances the District of Columbia's budget 1 year ahead of schedule. We cannot do that for ourselves. And it dedicates $201 million toward deficit reduction. Would it not be nice if we could do that? But the D.C. government is going to reduce its deficit by $200 million, balance its budget a year ahead of schedule. And that is what we are asking this House to agree to. The substitute provides money for charter schools. It prohibits the District of Columbia from using Federal and local funds to pay for abortions or to allow individuals to include domestic partners on their health insurance policies. This is not the kind of bill that we would generally favor, but we want the District of Columbia citizens to get the money that they need and to get it now, when they need it. My substitute, however, does not embroil the Congress and the District of Columbia in a number of very unnecessary and ancillary controversies that will prevent this bill from being enacted into law. If this substitute is not passed, this bill will not be enacted into law. The substitute will eliminate the need for this Congress, thus, to pass another continuing resolution and to further delay the necessary budget and management reforms from being implemented in the District of Columbia. Our reforms will not be implemented if we do not pass the substitute. It will eliminate more than 50 legislative provisions that are contained in this D.C. Appropriations Act. And it will shrink this bill, it will save hundreds of trees, it will shrink this bill by about 100 pages. One hundred pages will not be necessary of extraneous provisions if we agree to this substitute. These include provisions on school vouchers, Davis-Bacon, medical malpractice, welfare caps, prohibiting helicopter flights, restricting the use of automobiles, school leases, cutting school administrators, closing Pennsylvania Avenue, repealing the NEA tax exemption, restricting the ability to fire the Chief Financial Officer and Inspector General, and on, and on, and on. Finally, the bill would order the Control Board to aggregate a critical contract to provide a new financial management system. Of all the issues we talked about, this may be the most important. The District desperately needs a new financial management system. When this bill orders an end to the financial management system contract, Chairman Arthur Brimmer, the chairman of our created control board, said it would force the control board into a sole-source contract that we would never otherwise agree to, and it will force them to upgrade the current, the failing system, by the very company that installed the failing system, a company that does not even want the contract. It requires that a contract be given to a company that does not want it and who did not win it. But it would force it upon them through a sole-source contract. Is this what we want to pass? The District's current financial management system is more than 18 years old. The original system was installed after a study showed that the District's financial systems and policies were in disarray. It was created to eliminate the manual operations then used by the government and to adopt a standard modern fiscal reporting procedure that was necessary to improve financial and program management. It sounded great, but the system never worked, Mr. Chairman. The necessary subsystems that were to coordinate the flow of data were never installed. The training necessary to enable District employees to properly use the system was never conducted. Numerous studies and outside experts agreed that the District is saddled with a system that cannot provide accurate and timely reports about the city spending and tax budget. We demand the reports, but they cannot give them to us, on how their money is being spent. Everyone agreed it needed to be replaced. This bill, if we do not pass this amendment, will prevent it from being replaced, will continue the old system. As part of its effort to reform the District's finances, the control board, along with the chief financial officer, a panel of the highest level of public and private sector advisors, began a procurement effort, began an effort that we wanted them to do, and they purchased and implemented a new financial management system that would rein in the District's out-of-control budget. That was their intent. It was done through a competitive process, a process we insisted upon. The control board received bids from three firms and following all the proper procedures, they awarded a $26 million contract to Peat Marwick, which is an accounting consulting firm, a large Washington office, we are familiar with them. The financial management system did not even submit a bid for the new contract, and yet we would force it upon them. This new system that this substitute will provide for will greatly improve the District's financial management and will enable the District of Columbia for the first time to cross-reference rent income, tax receipts, comparative cash balances, to actually ensure that the District's tax assessments and tax returns are accurate. It will enable the District, for the first time, to measure the performance of public services. We have been asking them to do this year in and year out. They will do it if we allow them to, and it will ensure that they are not only doing the job they are supposed to, but doing it within the congressionally appropriated budget levels. We all know how much technology has changed over the last 20 years. A new financial management system for the District will enable the city to take advantage of the technology revolution, use it to its benefit. In the words of the control board chairman, the subcommittee's efforts, in other words, if we do not pass this amendment, it will force the city to upgrade its old financial system just in the same way that we would ask IBM to upgrade manual typewriters instead of replacing them with computers. It is comparable to that. That is why we cannot let it happen. Without buying a modern financial system, the chairman of the control board said, the board will not be able to fulfill its congressional mandate. We cannot require it to do something and then take from them the means to accomplish what we forced them, Mr. Chairman, to do. We have to approve financial accountability in the city, and that is why, as important as any other reason, that is why we need the substitute amendment. We created the board to reform the District's financial management. We created the chief financial officer to rein in their spending. Both entities that we created are unequivocally opposed to this bill. They unequivocally support what we are trying to do with the substitute amendment, which is the Senate bill. My substitute amendment will ensure that they can do their jobs, and that, as much as anything else, is a compelling reason to vote for the substitute amendment. If we fail to pass it, the D.C. appropriations bill will not be enacted before the continuing resolution expires. It will not. It will not be enacted before Congress adjourns in November, and this will mean that Congress must pass a long-term CR for the District that is comparable to the 6-month continuing resolution in 1995, which wreaked havoc, havoc that we are still paying a price for. This continuing resolution will prevent the District from entering into long-term contracts. It is going to cost us millions of dollars, wasted money. It will delay the implementation of the management reforms that we have been begging the District and the control board to undertake. It will further delay the day when the District stops being the whipping boy of the Nation and begins to fundamentally restructure and improve its operations. That is what we want. That is what we said we have got to have. Do not deny them the means to accomplish it. The District of Columbia needs us to pass this substitute. Pass this appropriations bill, have it signed into law, begin the step-by-step process of turning the Capital City around, turning it into a capital of which we can all be proud. That is why I urge my colleagues to vote for the Moran substitute. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas [Ms. Jackson-Lee]. (Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 35 seconds to point out to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay] that this bill that I support, the portion that I support, reduces personnel in the school system from 11,253 down to 9,960. I also have a letter I have just received from Dr. Brimmer, who chairs the Board that this Congress established, that urges us to vote for the Moran substitute. It is because without the Moran substitute, they will not have the local control that we guaranteed them in the D.C. Revitalization Act. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], who I am sure will be more than happy to respond to the comments of the gentleman from Texas [Mr. DeLay].

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the honorable gentlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Morella], vice chairman of the Subcommittee on the District of Columbia.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Obey], the ranking Democrat on the full Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds. Mr. Chairman, I would make it clear that the National Education Association has agreed to pay all of its property taxes, and in fact, in this bill, it would do so. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Dixon].

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida [Mrs. Meek]. (Mrs. MEEK of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 seconds to myself. Mr. Chairman, I would say that I will make every effort to ensure that provision is not accommodated in conference, for what it is worth. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan [Ms. Stabenow].

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Dixon].

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to emphasize this is Mr. Faircloth's bill that we are asking the House to pass. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Lewis].

Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Scott].