[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 13 (Wednesday, February 5, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H301-H302]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    HELPING THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

  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, I come to the floor first and foremost to 
thank Members for the way they responded to the President's remarks 
concerning the District yesterday. The President spoke, in his State of 
the Union speech, warmly of his own intention to assist the District, 
and partly in his words, ``to renew this great capital city so that 
Washington, DC, is a great place to live, and is once again the proud 
face America shows to the world.''
  I appreciate as well the concerned words of Speaker Gingrich, who 
devoted part of his own opening speech, upon being sworn in, to the 
District. The Speaker has in fact been very helpful to the District 
during the 104th Congress.

[[Page H302]]

  The President has put on the table a strong plan. First, it takes 
back $5 billion in pension liability racked up by the Congress before 
home rule and off-loaded on the District. Second, it recognizes that 
the District is not a State and like every city in the United States 
cannot today bear State, county, and municipal functions all by itself, 
even if it becomes the most efficient government on the face of the 
Earth.
  Last night the President offered words on an empowerment zone 
approach that he intends to spread to cities across the United States, 
including the District. It is a traditional approach that is already in 
use across the country. I am very grateful that he wants to include the 
District in this approach. I welcome it. But I welcome it only in 
combination with income tax relief in light of a bill I have introduced 
yesterday.
  As the sole response to the crisis of the capital city, the 
empowerment approach is unacceptable to me and to the District. Why? 
The President's own plan, the President's strong plan--for pension and 
State cost relief--would take this much, represented by the orange 
color, off the table from what District taxpayers now pay. What that 
means is that 90 percent of what District taxpayers pay they would 
continue to pay. Strong as his plan is, it really is marginal in what 
it does to take away what a dwindling tax base would pay.
  We are now at 1933 population levels. We do not have a State like New 
York and like Florida. We are losing, in the 1990's three times as many 
people as we lost in the 1980's.
  Consider what our alternatives are. Commuter tax, massive infusions 
from the Federal Government and, finally, use of our own money through 
a tax cut. Commuter tax, thank you, Mr. Congress, you have taken that 
off the table. We are barred from a commuter tax, even though virtually 
all the jobs go to commuters. They come in and use the services of an 
insolvent city and do not leave one thin dime here. You took that off 
the table. Massive infusions from the Federal Government, you have 
taken off the table for everybody, even the capital of the United 
States. I am down to the only option I have left: Let us use our own 
money to pay what it takes to revive our own city.
  The District of Columbia Economic Recovery Act is a bipartisan tax 
cut bill. I put it in only because we have no State. If we had a State, 
I would not do it. I would go to the State.

                              {time}  1330

  Big cities get almost all of their revenue from State and Federal 
sources. D.C.'s revenue must come from a tax base that is disappearing 
with no way to recycle money back from those who leave.
  Think about it. Even if you come from a small town, think about the 
great cities in your State, New York City, L.A., Detroit, Atlanta, 
Seattle, Houston, Chicago, Newark, Nashville, Greenville, Charlotte, 
Richmond, and Baltimore. None of them support themselves. They are 
basically supported by their States.
  If you did not have a State, what would you do? What do you expect 
the capital of the United States to do? An empowerment zone by itself 
does not address taxpayer drain. Even businesses in D.C. tell us that 
for every ten jobs we make in D.C., nine of them go to suburbanites. 
They say that is because we are losing our skilled work force, which is 
another way of saying losing our tax base. They say that an empowerment 
zone incentive will not help the District because business looks to the 
skilled work force, not to tax incentives when deciding whether or not 
to locate in a city.
  This is not your average tax cut. It is not what we usually mean in 
this House. It is not about money saving; it is about life saving. We 
have to think outside the box. We have to understand that in essence, 
if not this, what?
  You have a unique situation in the capital of the United States. You 
have a stateless city. It is insolvent. Its revenue is dwindling away 
with its tax base. The capital is trapped. Help us free ourselves.

                          ____________________