[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 193 (Wednesday, December 6, 1995)]
[House]
[Page H14138]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




  MEMBERS SHOULD CONSIDER LEGISLATION TO PROTECT DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 
             GOVERNMENT DURING FEDERAL GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under a previous order of the House, the 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia [Ms. Norton] is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, this is day 10 of my countdown since the 
last shutdown of the Federal Government and, astonishingly, of the 
District of Columbia, not a Federal agency, you may have noticed.
  We face the possibility on December 15 of another closedown, or 
perhaps a short-term CR. For the District that would not be much better 
than a shutdown, because it is almost impossible to run a city on a 30-
day basis without the flexibility to obligate your funds.
   Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Tom 
Davis, a strong supporter and cosponsor of the D.C. Fiscal Protection 
Act to allow the District to spend its own funds and to continue to 
operate in the event of a shutdown or a failure of the President to 
sign an appropriation in time. The gentleman from Virginia had a 
hearing on this bill today, and I would like to note for the Record 
some of the remarks of the witnesses, because they reflect a very broad 
support from every sector in the District on a bipartisan basis for 
this legislation.
  The Comptroller of the United States testified for the administration 
that the administration believes that legislation is necessary. Dr. 
Brimmer, the Chair, the distinguished Chair of the Control Board, 
testified, ``the city's' critical fiscal condition would be aggravated 
by any more such actions.'' He went on to say, ``nearly 15,000 
employees were furloughed, resulting in a $7.3 million loss in 
productivity.'' May I add, Mr. Speaker, that this is a city in the 
throes of fiscal insolvency. The notion that the Congress would 
participate in aggravating that condition is simply unacceptable, and I 
think unintended by this body.
  Dr. Brimmer goes on: ``District headquarters and agency budget 
analysts were nearly all deemed nonessential. This delayed critical 
work on the development of the District's 1996 and 1997 financial plan 
and budget needed to provide the city's fiscal recovery. We agree that 
the District should be allowed to obligate or expend an amount equal to 
all locally generated revenues such as local taxes and local fees.'' 
One might ask: What is the District's own local money doing in the 
Congress of the United States in the first place, Mr. Speaker?

  The Board of Trade testified today, and I am quoting: ``One week of 
delay in licensing and permitting inspections and other business-
related regulatory process increases costs. These were services that 
are largely paid for by locally generated revenues.''
  Mr. Tidings of the Board of Trade concluded: ``I understand that some 
Members of Congress are concerned that should the District be exempted 
from the larger Federal budget debate, there no longer would be a 
distinction between which other Federal agencies deserved the exemption 
and which do not. No matter how individual Members of Congress may view 
their constitutional oversight responsibilities for the District of 
Columbia, it is a unique Federal entity and one that cannot and should 
not be compared to any other Federal department or agency. The Greater 
Washington Board of Trade fully supports this subcommittee's efforts to 
allow the District of Columbia Government to remain open during a 
Federal shutdown under the spending parameters outlined in Ms. Norton's 
proposal.
  Two unions also testified, Mr. David Shrine and Mr. Hicks, Mr. Shrine 
of the AFGE, and Mr. Hicks of AFSCME.
  Every sector and bipartisan membership on the subcommittee all agree 
that this is the Nation's Capital for which we all must take 
responsibility. The notion of pushing it into greater insolvency 
because we allow it to shut down, or tether it to a short-term CR, 
making it impossible to run the city in a rational way, is not what 
this body should stand for. It is hard to defend adding to the waste 
and inefficiency for which the District has been criticized, at a time 
when the city is close to fiscal insolvency, it is hard to defend 
holding hostage the District of Columbia's own money by tethering it to 
a short-term CR, allowing it to operate by fits and starts, and 
compounding its fiscal problems. It is hard to defend putting a leash 
on the District, making it operate in a straitjacket that promotes 
terrible waste and compounds the inefficiency for which Member after 
Member has criticized the District of Columbia.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask this body to consider the bill. I ask the majority 
to bring forward the bill that has bipartisan support in the committee.

                          ____________________