January 28, 2005: NORTON WORKING TO ASSURE D.C. IS NOT HURT IN REORGANIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS

Washington, DC--The Office of Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) today cautioned against much of the speculation about the ongoing reorganization of the congressional appropriations process, which is still in flux, with major disagreements within the Republican majority, which controls the process, as well as between the Senate and House. Norton has informed Mayor Tony Williams and Council Chairman Linda Cropp that although the District is not the object of the changes underway, the D.C. subcommittee is almost certain to be eliminated, and the number of subcommittees may be reduced possibly from 13 to as few as 11.

Norton began discussions within the Congress several months ago because it was obvious as passage of the new 9/11 intelligence bill seemed assured that Congress would seek to make room for new and separate appropriations oversight over intelligence matters. Unlike legislation, or even appropriations riders, where the Congresswoman has often been able to negotiate outcomes, the organizational structure of the House and Senate is the unilateral prerogative of the political party that controls Congress. Nevertheless, Norton has a long time friendship with the new appropriations chair, Jerry Lewis, who served on the D.C. appropriations subcommittee for years and who has a record of fairness to the city.

As usual with unprecedented changes, there is considerable uninformed speculation about the changes and their effects. The changes are being worked behind closed doors by the Republican leadership without the participation of almost all Republicans, and no Democrats are involved. Those with the greatest vested interest in the present structure are Republicans who would lose the opportunity to head their own subcommittees, and to a lesser extent, Democrats, who would be ranking members.

The District supported the Senate version of the Home Rule Act of 1973, which eliminated all appropriations subcommittees in favor of District control of its own budget. However, the House version prevailed because Chairman Bill Natcher of Kentucky said he would not support home rule unless congressional control over the D.C. budget was retained. When the appropriations process for D.C. was retained, the city asked for budget autonomy, and this has been the city’s position for 30 years. The District has long been a part of a Senate authorizing committee and Norton succeeded in abolishing the D.C. subcommittee of the Government Reform Committee in the 108^th Congress in order to eliminate this additional layer of intrusion into D.C. self government.

The District appropriations subcommittees do not increase the city’s power in budget process. The District cannot have a presence or a vote on the subcommittee because delegates, who cannot vote on the House floor, are not eligible for the appropriations committee where every vote is deemed to be needed for final passage of an appropriation bill. Since virtually all the funds committed to the D.C. subcommittee are D.C. budget funds, the subcommittee is not a source of significant funding for D.C. residents.

Congressional oversight of the District’s local budget, of course, is never desirable. However, there are important concerns that need attention in any reorganization of the appropriations process. For example, if there is to be oversight of any kind, the understanding of how the D.C. appropriation is to be handled and the attitude of the full appropriations chair and the subcommittee chair, not the structure, are the controlling factors. The D.C. subcommittee has often been the chief source of riders and of financial dictation to the District, depending on the chairs. In recent years, chairs have respected the integrity of home rule, but previous chairs have often taken down considerable authority of the Mayor and the City Council or have participated in doing so.