Jim Walsh

Mr. WALSH

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion and urge that we support the gentleman from California, Chairman Lewis, on this important issue. These riders can and should be dealt with one by one. I think the chairman needs to have that discretion. There may be some that are good, there may be some that are bad, but I think he needs that discretion. Let me just talk about a couple of these riders. One, on the Delaney clause, everybody in this room knows that the Delaney clause is unenforceable. EPA even sued because they knew they could not enforce this law. Let us get it off the books. The second one, regarding testing, small towns all over New York State have to test for arsenic that does not occur naturally within 1,000 miles of those towns, but they are forced to test for those heavy metals because the EPA has a nationwide policy. It is very expensive for the towns to do that testing. Let us get this burdensome regulation cleared up as quickly as possible. This bill is the only vehicle we have.

Mr. WALSH

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson], my good friend and distinguished colleague, and I rise in support of his amendment and offer him my deep gratitude for the work that he has done. Mr. Chairman, we did, in fact, have hearings in our subcommittee regarding education where we discussed the issues with parents, students, teachers, school board members and other interested parties. The schools and the kids [[Page H 11727]] need help, Mr. Chairman. Our subcommittee received many requests to make changes in the District's public schools. We considered cutting the pay of school board members. We considered cutting their staff. We considered forcing other changes. But we held back. The work of the control board and the work that the gentleman from Wisconsin [Mr. Gunderson] has done I think, will have a dramatic and positive effect in the very near future on the quality of education in the District of Columbia. Mr. Chairman, this vote is for the kids of this city. Wealthy families in Washington, DC, have had, and continue to have, the choice, the opportunity, to send their kids to private schools or public schools. What we are suggesting is that we are in favor of middle-class families and poor families having those same choices. We believe that there is no greater gift that parents can give their children than a quality education. That should not be just for wealthy families, Mr. Chairman. That should be for poor families, middle-class families and all families in the District of Columbia. This goes a very short way in helping that to happen. I am hopeful that success will breed success and others will contribute to this scholarship program.

Mr. WALSH

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for recognizing the progress that we have made, and would submit we have a lot more to make. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas [Mr. Bonilla], a member of the subcommittee.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana [Mr. Livingston], the chairman of the Committee on Appropriations. (Mr. LIVINGSTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, 20 years of home rule and 15 years of unrestrained spending have brought the District government to the brink of financial insolvency. The District government has had the same mayor for 13 of those 20 years. It is very difficult sometimes to discern charisma from leadership, and when that occurs and the latter is lacking, unsuspecting citizens are left to shoulder the burden. The bill we bring to you today will provide the District government with a total budget of $4.97 billion for fiscal year 1996 consisting of $4.87 billion for operating expenses and $102 million for capital outlay. I believe $4.97 billion is sufficient to provide adequate services given the size--68 square miles--and population--570,000--of the city. The District needs to do a better job of managing and setting priorities. It needs to be held accountable. I believe that will be done through the D.C. Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority that was established earlier this year by Public Law 104-8. The authority is chaired by Dr. Brimmer, and I am confident with he and his colleagues will be successful in encouraging meaningful structural reforms and accountability in the District government. Mr. Chairman, the $4.97 billion consists of $2.8 billion of the District's own funds, and $712 million in Federal funds provided in this bill, $1 billion in Federal grants, and $362 million in private and other funds, and $161 million in intra-District funds. The $712 million in Federal funds recommended in this bill is consistent with our 602(b) allocation in budget authority and outlays. That amount includes a Federal payment to the general fund of $660 million as authorized in Public Law 103-373 and requested in the President's budget. In my opinion, Mr. Chairman, this payment by the Federal Government is generous. The other part of the $712 million is the $52 million for the Federal contribution to the police, fire, teachers, and judges retirement funds. This amount is $70 thousand below the President's request and reflects a reduction that was necessary in order to comply with our 602(b) allocation. district's financial crisis During fiscal year 1994 it became apparent that the District government was in serious financial trouble. The District's annual financial statement for fiscal year 1994 confirmed everyone's suspiction--the biggest annual deficit in the District's history had occurred and the government was technically insolvent. Realizing what was about to occur, the House fifteen months ago made a decision that was long overdue. It recognized that there was very little accountability in the District government and a great deal of deception. Although the budgets in the past were balanced on paper, the city was overspending its budget and would soon be out of cash unless it changed its ways. The House, on a bipartisan basis, voted to cut the District's spending by $150 million--no change was made to its revenues. When the bill came out of conference last year the reductions were $140 million and 2,000 positions as well as a cut in the Federal payment of $10 million. A year later the District is still in a financial crisis. financial management authority Recognizing this the Congress in April of this year created a Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority. The Authority became operative in June and in the last 5 months has made some tough decisions. I have a lot of confidence in the Authority and believe it is headed in the right direction to bring the District government back from the brink of financial disaster to a sound financial footing. bill appropriates all revenue sources Unlike past years, our bill this year appropriates all of the District's revenues which include the Federal payment, local taxes and other local revenues, and Federal and other grants. In past years the bill did not include Federal and other grants which were considered nonappropriated revenues. The [[Page H 11628]] independent audit for fiscal year 1994 showed that two-thirds of the District's $335 million deficit was due to this nonappropriated category. action by district While the bill does not go as far as some think it should, our actions at the subcommittee level have resulted in what I believe to be positive action by the District. The day after our markup the Board of Education voted to allow the Superintendent to use his discretion in contracting out the management of any of the 164 public schools. According to the press the Board as well as the Mayor and Council are taking a look at the salaries of school board members which are said to be the highest in the country. City officials have agreed to turn over the Blue Plains sewage treatment plant to an independent authority under a pact with suburban governments. One of the Council members introduced a bill to consolidate the District government's economic development entities into a single unit to cut costs and improve services. In addition, the Council Chairman sent up a draft copy of a bill to establish a pension plan for new hires that will not have any unfunded liability. So all in all I believe our actions are getting some results even though the legislative provisions were dropped from our bill in our subsequent markup on October 19. Instead of including the language in our bill, we are asking the Financial Authority to review several matters listed on pages 7, 8 and 9 of the report and try to resolve them at the local level and report to the Congress in March 1996 on the disposition of the items and recommendations for resolving those that are still outstanding at that time. It is vitally important that District officials try to change the culture that has contributed greatly to the city's financial predicament. high per capita costs Another top priority of the Authority will have to be--and I reiterate the words ``have to be''--getting the per capita costs of operating the District under control. By almost every measure the cost of delivering services here in the District is the highest around. According to a Congressional Research Service comparison of the District of Columbia to cities of comparable size for fiscal year 1992, the District had the highest per capita costs for police, fire, education and welfare services. To provide police protection in 1992 the District government spent $467 per person compared to $248 for the city of Boston, MA. Regarding Emergency Assistance Services, the City Auditor recently reported that a ``comparison between the District and neighboring jurisdictions revealed that the District provided the most generous emergency assistance benefits in the region during fiscal years 1993 and 1994. The District provided benefits up to a maximum of $4,350, while Prince George's and Montgomery Counties in Maryland limit their maximum benefits to $750.'' The City Auditor's report goes on further to say that ``the District lags behind in receiving its full share of the 50 percent Federal reimbursement through participation in the Emergency Assistance Services program sponsored by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.'' This occurs because of deficiencies in meeting certain Federal documentation requirements, so therefore the District has to pick up the full cost of the program when they cannot provide the documentation. ``waste'' in district government It is waste such as this which I believe is causing a lot of the city's problems. Recently the court-appointed Receiver of the District's foster care services discovered another instance of waste. According to press reports, and I quote: ``Miller (the court-appointed receiver) said that in an astounding example of lax cost control, his staff discovered that the agency is paying an additional $5,000 a month rent for cafeteria space in the basement of (a building) without ever having installed the cafeteria.'' Miller goes on to talk about other problems like a questionable $25 million data-processing contract. The point is that this and so many other reports and testimonies we have had seem to indicate that there is a lot of waste going on in the District and if we can at least begin to eliminate some of this we may see some of those high per capita costs come down. accountability We need accountability in the District government, both for finances as well as the delivery of services. We are hopeful that the Authority will begin to show the kind of results we are all looking forward to, and we hope that this will be done in an atmosphere of cooperation with the Mayor and City Council. conclusion We are all in this together and we each have to accept our role in this process of making our Nation's Capital the urban jewel it should be. It is Congress' role to appropriate. The Authority's role is to formulate the financial controls and the process to improve services so that the city can perform its role, which is to execute and carry out that process in a disciplined and professional manner. We hope much will be accomplished this year so that we do not see more of the city's operations falling under court orders or into receivership. That is the final action that will need to be taken if the city cannot get control of its spending and reduce its costs to reasonable levels. Other very important issues, such as tax reform and health and welfare issues, will also have to be reviewed by the authorizing committees. These reforms will be needed to revitalize the economy of the District and will be the subject of many discussions and possible future legislation. In closing, I want to thank all of the members of our subcommittee for their assistance in bringing this bill to the Committee. Mr. Bonilla of Texas, Mr. Kingston of Georgia, Mr. Frelinghuysen of New Jersey, Mr. Neumann of Wisconsin, Mr. Dixon of California, the ranking member of our subcommittee who served as chairman for the past 15 years, Mr. Durbin of Illinois, and Ms. Kaptur of Ohio. Also Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the staff for a job well done under some very difficult circumstances. John Simmons of my personal staff has done an outstanding job in coordinating between the Speaker's office, the appropriations and authorizing committees, the Speaker's task force and Members' officers. Mary Porter who does an excellent job keeping track of the numbers. I am told she has been doing this for the Committee for 35 years--she started back when our departed colleague Mr. Natcher first became chairman of the DC Subcommittee. She is detailed to the Committee from the District government and works with the numbers when they are first put together in the Mayor's budget office, and follows them through the Council, the House, the Senate and conference. She is to be commended for the high quality of her work as well as for her endurance and perseverance. Mike Fischetti is on loan from GAO. He is a CPA and a certified fraud examiner who is in great demand these days. We are very fortunate to have the benefit of his expertise and analysis. And of course Migo Miconi, who has been on the staff for longer than he cares to admit. Each of them does an excellent job and together they make a great team. Mr. Chairman, I believe the bill we bring to the House today is a good bill and one that the District can live with. At the appropriate time I will offer a managers amendment to clarify language concerning adoptions by unmarried couples. Mr. Chairman, I strongly recommend this bill to my colleagues and urge an ``aye'' vote. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to say to the gentlewoman that I would suggest it is never wrong to quote from the Constitution of the United States. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Dornan].

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the gentleman's amendment and urge its adoption.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, my amendment clarifies the language in section 153 on pages 57 and 58 of the bill concerning adoptions by unmarried couples. Mr. Chairman, the language presently in the bill amends the D.C. Code and requires that a person who joins in a petition to adopt must be spouse of the petitioner. My perfecting amendment makes it clear that the language does not apply to individual, unmarried petitioners. In other words, a single person is permitted to file a petition for adoption, and that has always been the case. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support my amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, just to clarify a couple of points that have been made earlier in the debate, the appropriated level in this bill is $84 million less than last year's appropriated level. There are a lot of other numbers that have been offered. The District government requested an appropriation level; the Control Board responded to that; the subcommittee responded to that. Mr. Chairman, take all the numbers away, we end up with $84 million less than last year. Again, regarding the Constitution, it does clearly state that Congress has the authority and responsibility regarding the District of Columbia. The Home Rule Act was a delegation of that responsibility to the District government, but it was contingent upon the District presenting balanced budgets to the Congress each and every year. Mr. Chairman, the General Accounting Office showed us very clearly that over the last 3 or 4 years, they have not done that. They used fiscal gimmickry, they decided not to make pension payments, or they included five quarters of property tax collections in 1 year, which is impossible. There are four quarters in 1 year and they cannot get five quarters in 1 year. Mr. Chairman, they did anything and everything to make it look like the budgets were balanced. But the fact is they have not been balanced. Mr. Chairman, we have bent over backward to continue home rule. Mr. Chairman, lately this committee has done its best to try to allow the District to continue to govern itself, and we have asked the Control Board to work with the District government to resolve some of these issues. We are prepared to support the Control Board and give them the authority to allocate the reductions recommended in our bill. I think that is fair. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Davis]. (Mr. DAVIS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. WALSH. I only have 5 seconds remaining.

Mr. WALSH

Mr. WALSH. The gentleman made the point that it makes up 40 percent of their budget. It does not in other communities around the United States.

Mr. WALSH. $712 million, and another perhaps $1 billion, $1.2 billion, for formula funds, Medicaid funds, transportation funds, and so on.

Mr. WALSH. Plus $52 million for the pensions.

Mr. WALSH. Yes.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I think the gentleman is correct. The District's total appropriated budget is about $5 billion, including a $712 million direct grant to the District by Congress.

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from the Committee on Rules for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule. I think the rule recommended by the Committee on Rules gives us all an opportunity to offer amendments. The rule makes some amendments in order. Other amendments would be in order to strike language in the bill. In all cases an adequate amount of time is allowed by the rule for full debate. I think it is a fair rule, and I urge bipartisan support. Speaking of bipartisanship, Mr. Speaker, I would like to suggest that last year when the other party, the former majority party, had control of this committee, I worked with them to pass this bill. The District of Columbia spends every penny of the Federal formula funds that it receives from this Congress on the very first day of its fiscal year. That is the kind of fiscal house they operate. The District of Columbia spends $5 billion every year on a city of 570,000 people. That is unheard of anywhere else in this country. But I, along with others on our side, reached across the aisle to help the current minority party get this bill passed last year. I would ask nothing less of them this year than to help us to pass this bill. It is our responsibility to govern. It is our responsibility to pass this bill. It took Republican votes last year to pass this bill, and I would ask them to reach across the aisle this year. I would ask the Delegate, who has spoken so strongly in opposition to this bill, to recognize the fact that the District needs the money in this bill, that the District government needs the money to meet their commitments. There was no emphasis or effort on this side of the aisle to cut Federal funds from this bill. This is a hold-fast, steady-as- you-go, financial commitment to the District of Columbia. While the rest of the country is being asked to take severe cuts all across the board, we are not cutting the Federal funds to the District of Columbia. If this rule were to fail, that might be the first order of business by this subcommittee. Home rule: Home rule is a delegation of responsibility from the Congress to the District of Columbia to organize and operate its own affairs. In the 20 years of home rule, we have seen one unbalanced budget after another to the point where the new administration last January announced that they were $700 million in the hole. When Mayor Kelly was elected 4 years ago, the Congress gave the District authority to borrow $336 million and gave them an additional $100 million within the first eight months of her administration--$400 million to cover the financial deficit that was occurring then. The consistent message to the Congress from the District of Columbia is ``respect home rule and send money; as much as you can send us, send us.'' The District Government has done a terrible job running this city. Congress is always criticized for stepping in and involving itself, but I dare say the Congress would not step in, would not involve itself, if the city was being run in a responsible way. There is no accountability in this city. There is no fiscal discipline in this city. There is an inability to deliver basic services in this city. The potholes do not get fixed, the garbage does not get picked up, the water and sewer system does not work right. It is rife with overemployment. The list goes on and on. They have the worst schools in America. This subcommittee pursued the resolution of these problems aggressively. Then we took a step back and said, okay, we have the financial control board in place now. We will ask them to review these problems and make recommendations to Congress, back to the authorizing committee. So we basically took our hands off of the problem. I felt we should have been more aggressive, but that was not to be. But the fact is the control board now has the responsibility. We have delegated additional responsibility to them in our bill, and we have done our level best to avoid involving ourselves in the responsibilities of the District. When the other party ran this committee, they interfered in home rule when it served their purposes. The underlying definition of ``home rule'' was, ``if it is not controversial, we can do it. If it is controversial, we cannot do it.'' That is not home rule. That is a rationalization process. Let me end by saying the delicate question: Where is the leadership here? Leadership requires individuals to take risks. The Delegate has taken no risks. They want the money, but they do not want to stand up for the bill. My colleagues cannot have it both ways; that is not leadership. They cannot say we have got to help the District, we have got to move the bill along, and then stand up and oppose the rule and oppose the bill. That is not leadership, not by my definition. So I would suggest as a challenge to all of us to work together to extend a hand across the aisle, as the Republicans did for the Democrats last year, and get together, and pass this bill. There is enough in this bill to make everybody angry, but it is what the District needs at a minimum, and I would urge all of us, Republicans and Democrats, to support the rule and support the bill.

Mr. WALSH

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and that I may include tabular and extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 2546.