OPENING REMARKS OF COUNCIL CHAIRMAN VINCENT C.

GRAY
BUDGET HEARING ON THE 2011 BUDGET SUPPORT ACT, MAY 7, 2010

THE BUDGET SUPPORT ACT WAS ORIGINALLY DEVELOPED TO INCLUDE ALL OF

THE LEGAL CHANGES THAT WERE NEEDED TO TRANSFER, INCREASE, OR
DECREASE FUNDING WITHIN THE MAYOR’S PROPOSED BUDGET TO ENSURE
THAT IT WAS BALANCED. THE BUDGET SUPPORT ACT WOULD ACCOMPANY THE
BUDGET REQUEST ACT.

IN SOME PRIOR YEARS, THE COUNCIL HAS INCLUDED SUBTITLES IN THE BUDGET
SUPPORT ACT THAT WERE NOT BUDGET-RELATED. I PLAN TO CONTINUE THE
TREND FROM THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS BY ENFORCING A RELATIVELY
RIGOROUS STANDARD FOR SUBTITLES TO BE GERMANE AND NECESSARY TO
BALANCE THE BUDGET. ANY SUBTITLE THAT IS NOT BUDGET-RELATED WILL BE
STRICKEN REGARDLESS OF ITS MERIT.

I BELIEVE, AS A GENERAL MATTER, THAT IT IS PREFERABLE FOR AN INDIVIDUAL

PIECE OF LEGISLATION TO BE SEPARATELY NOTICED, EXPERIENCE THE
SCRUTINY OF A PUBLIC HEARING, AND MOVE FORWARD ON ITS OWN MERITS TO
PROVIDE GREATER THOUGHT AND TRANSPARENCY DURING THE LEGISLATIVE
PROCESS. HOWEVER, EXCEPTIONS CAN BE MADE FOR MEASURES THAT ARE
CLEARLY BUDGET-RELATED.

AS IN PRIOR YEARS, THE COMMITTEES HAVE BEEN ASSIGNED COMMENTS ON

BUDGET SUPPORT ACT SUBTITLES THAT FALL UNDER THEIR LEGISLATIVE
JURISDICTION. GENERALLY, THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE ARE
GIVEN GREAT WEIGHT AT THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE LEVEL, IN RELIANCE
UPON THE COMMITTEE’S EXPERTISE IN THE SUBJECT AREA. THIS YEAR, WE
WILL CONTINUE TO LOOK TO THE EXPERTISE OF OUR COMMITTEES IN
DELIBERATING THOSE SUBTITLES.

THIS YEAR, I HAVE SIGNIFICANT CONCERNS WITH A NUMBER OF THE

SUBTITLES THAT MAYOR FENTY HAS INCLUDED IN THE BUDGET SUPPORT
ACT. THE MOST SIGNIFICANT CONCERN INVOLVES THE MAYOR’S
STRATEGY TO FREEZE UNION STEP INCREASES THAT IS ENCOMPASSED IN
BOTH THE BUDGET REQUEST ACT AND THE BUDGET SUPPORT ACT. I
CANNOT SUPPORT THE MAYOR’S DECISION TO ASK THE CONGRESS OF THE
UNITED STATES TO STEP IN AND IMPAIR UNION CONTRACTS AND
NEGOTIATED COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS.

RESIDENTS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ARE STILL OUTRAGED OVER THE

CONGRESSIONAL EFFORT TO STRIP THE DISTRICT OF ITS POWER TO REGULATE
GUNS. THIS CONGRESSIONAL INTERFERENCE COSTS THE DISTRICT A VOTE IN
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WHICH IS A HUMAN RIGHT THAT WE ARE
DUE AS CITIZENS AND AS DISTRICT AND UNITED STATES TAXPAYERS.
ANOTHER ISSUE AFFECTING DISTRICT WORKERS, FOR WHICH I HAVE
SIGNIFICANT CONCERN IS THE BUDGET SUPPORT ACT’S MERGING OF THE
OFFICE OF EMPLOYEE APPEALS, THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEE RELATIONS
BOARD, AND THE OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS. THIS TAKES THE
FUNCTIONS OF OEA AND PERB AND MERGES THEM INTO OAH WITH NO
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES, EFFECTIVELY DESTROYING THE RIGHTS OF OUR
WORKERS TO EFFECTIVELY RESOLVE GRIEVANCES.

ANOTHER CONCERN WITH THE BUDGET SUPPORT ACT IS THAT CLOSE TO 90

PERCENT OF ITS 244 PAGES INVOLVE A LITANY OF TAX, FEE, AND FINE
INCREASES. I BELIEVE RESIDENTS ARE TIRED OF FEELING NICKEL-AND-
DIMED WITH EVERYTHING THEY TRY TO DO IN THIS CITY. EXAMPLES
INCLUDE THE HOSPITAL PROVIDER TAX, THE E-911 FEE, THE VACANT
PROPERTY REGISTRATION FEE, THE STEEL PLATE FEE, THE SUMNER
SCHOOL USE FEE, AND ANOTHER INCREASE TO PARKING METERS. A
QUARTER UNDER THIS PROPOSAL WOULD ONLY GET YOU SIX MINUTES.

THEN WE HAVE THE EXAMPLE OF THE MAYOR’S TAX INCREASE TO THE

EARNED INCOME TAX CREDIT, WHERE HE TRIES TO BLAME HIS DECISION FOR
THIS TAX INCREASE ON COUNCIL ACTION, WHEN THE DECISION TO INCREASE
THIS TAX WAS SOLELY AN EXECUTIVE POLICY DECISION.

THE NEED FOR ALL THESE FEES AND OUR RAPID SPEND-DOWN OF THE
DISTRICT’S FUND BALANCE IS DUE TO THE EXECUTIVE’S INABILITY TO KEEP
AGENCIES’ FROM OVERSPENDING THEIR BUDGETS DURING THIS
RECESSION. THIS HAS BEEN ESPECIALLY PROBLEMATIC IN THE AREAS OF
NON-PUBLIC TUITION, SPECIAL EDUCATION TRANSPORTATION, AND
MEDICAID PROVIDER AGENCY REIMBURSEMENT WHERE OVERSPENDING
HAS BEEN ROUTINE. FOR THE SUMMER YOUTH EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM, WE
EVEN HAD THE MAYOR ORDERING THE AGENCY TO DELIBERATELY OVERSPEND
ITS BUDGET BY A COMBINED AMOUNT OF $43 MILLION OVER THE PAST TWO
YEARS. OBVIOUSLY, AS YOU SEE THE CITY’S FISCAL HEALTH DECLINING, WE
NEED TO START LIVING WITHIN OUR MEANS.

FINALLY, I AM CONCERNED ABOUT THE MAYOR’S BLATANT ATTEMPT TO

UNDO THE REFORMS WE PASSED LAST YEAR RELATED TO GRANT-MAKING
AND REPROGRAMMINGS. THE COUNCIL LEGISLATION BROUGHT MORE
TRANSPARENCY AND OVERSIGHT TO THESE AREAS, AND THE PROVISIONS IN
THE BUDGET SUPPORT ACT ARE A STEP BACKWARD.

I LOOK FORWARD TO THE TESTIMONY TODAY FROM BOTH THE PUBLIC AND
EXECUTIVE BRANCH WITNESSES…BUT FIRST I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS ONE
ISSUE IN WHICH THE COUNCIL HAS HEARD FROM MANY RESIDENTS OVER THE
LAST 24 HOURS (WE’VE RECEIVED THOUSANDS OF EMAILS) -- THERE
CURRENTLY IS NO PROPOSAL FROM EITHER THE COUNCIL OR THE MAYOR TO
TAX HEALTH CLUB MEMBERSHIPS OR OTHER SERVICE BUSINESSES. THAT
PARTICULAR TAX PROPOSAL IS ONE THAT HAS BEEN RECOMMENDED TO THE
COUNCIL BY SOME ADVOCACY GROUPS, BUT I WANTED TO MAKE IT CLEAR
THAT I AM NOT PUTTING THAT ON THE TABLE AND I HAVE NOT HEARD OF ANY
EFFORT TO MOVE IT FORWARD AT THIS TIME.

SOME COUNCILMEMBERS HAVE PROPOSED REVENUE IDEAS INCLUDING AN

INCREASE TO THE INCOME TAX RATE FOR HIGH-INCOME EARNERS, A SODA TAX,
ELIMINATING A TAX EXEMPTION ON OUT-OF-STATE BONDS, A FEE FOR BULK
TRASH PICK-UP, SITE SPECIFIC ADVERTISING AND NAMING RIGHTS AT CERTAIN
PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES. THE COUNCIL IS CURRENTLY DISCUSSING
THESE PROPOSALS, SO I WANTED TO PUT THEM OUT THERE AT THE ONSET, IF
ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT ON THEM. I’M ALSO INTERESTED IF THE
PUBLIC WITNESSES MIGHT HAVE OTHER IDEAS FOR RAISING REVENUE.