[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 159 (2013), Part 9]
[House]
[Pages 13568-13570]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                          GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 3, 2013, the Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from the District 
of Columbia (Ms. Norton) for 30 minutes.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, as the House adjourns, I want to note that 
when we come back the House will be in session for 5 days before the 
end of the fiscal year. That could bring a shutdown of the Federal 
Government. What most Americans don't know is that that could bring a 
shutdown also of the government of the Nation's Capital, the District 
of Columbia.
  I want to make clear that there is not a single Member of this House 
or the Senate who desires that outcome. There is nothing in that for 
anybody. Many Members of Congress and their staff actually live in the 
District of Columbia, so to have the Nation's Capital shut down is not 
anything that would be even in their interest.
  Beyond their own interest, most Members of Congress believe in local 
control and are mystified when they come here, whatever their party, to 
find that the Congress has anything to do with the local budget of the 
District of Columbia--$8 billion raised by the city--which has to come 
here before the city can spend a dime of its own money.

[[Page 13569]]

  The city has before the Congress, as I speak, a balanced budget. In 
fact, a budget that has won plaudits all around the country, and even 
in this Congress, because of the fund balance that the city has managed 
to build--over $1 billion--over time. D.C.'s very middle name should be 
``prudence.'' If anything, the District of Columbia has been an example 
of what we are trying to get cities and States all across the country 
to do.
  I understand why the leadership decided not to move forward with a 
continuing resolution, which would have guaranteed that the government 
would remain open until December 15. They need the time to get the 
votes and to satisfy their Members. That's perfectly understandable. 
What would not be understandable is if we went through another shutdown 
crisis.
  The government actually did shut down about 18 years ago. I do want 
to say here on the floor how grateful I am to the Speaker of the House 
at the time, Newt Gingrich, who indeed kept the District of Columbia, 
the Nation's Capital, open during multiple shutdowns of the Federal 
Government. He did so simply because it makes no sense to shut down the 
government of the Nation's Capital, which has not one ounce of interest 
in or blame for the disputes that have increasingly grown and have 
caused us to go on continuing resolutions because we do not get our 
bills done in time. There needs to be time to reconcile those matters.
  It is important to note that the District of Columbia budget, which 
was submitted here on time, is in such good shape that it did, in fact, 
pass both of the appropriation committees that receive it. So there's 
no issue here involving the District of Columbia, no reason why anybody 
would want it entangled in a Federal dispute. In fact, I thought that 
my good friends in the majority, above all, stood for disentanglement 
of the Federal Government from what should rightly be the work of the 
localities.
  I hasten to say this is an unintended consequence that comes from the 
fact that most Members don't even know it. Members come here to do the 
business of their district and the Federal Government. They don't come 
here to be educated on the District of Columbia. They have no idea that 
the District would close down if there was a close-down of the Federal 
Government. They would understand that I must do my job, and that is to 
take whatever steps I can to make sure that this unintended result does 
not occur.
  I'm asking to testify at the Rules Committee when the continuing 
resolution is considered. That is the resolution, as I indicated, that 
would keep the government open until December 15. It is interesting to 
know that with only a slight change the District of Columbia would not 
be an issue here.
  I want to thank the Republican appropriators who--it must be at least 
10 years ago--corrected another consequence that the Congress never 
intended. The District budget used to be held up whenever the budget, 
of course, of the Federal Government was held up, and for the very same 
reason that it hadn't come to the floor.
  So you had a city whose budget was due out by September 30 which 
sometimes got out in November or December. This wreaked havoc on the 
opening of schools and on the ability of the city to contract because 
the budget was over here and hadn't been passed.
  It is important also to put on the record that the budget doesn't 
come here because any Member of the Congress is interested in the 
budget or thinks that their oversight is necessary to make sure that 
the budget is done correctly. In fact, the budget is virtually never 
looked at.
  What does happen when a budget comes here is that extraneous 
amendments that reflect the views, not of the District of Columbia, but 
of a Member who is offering them, often are attached to our budget.
  The Appropriations Committee has never interfered with the budget 
itself. How could they? The budget has been put together by D.C. 
Council subcommittees and committees and the city has a chief financial 
officer--the only jurisdiction in the United States that has a 
financial officer appointed for 5 years, cannot be fired except for 
cause, who has to pass on the budget and make sure that there is no 
overspending. The D.C. budget comes here out of tradition. It comes 
here because for more than 200 years it has come here while the 
Congress has been trying to figure out how to deal with the anomalous 
position that it has put its Nation's Capital in.
  So here it is. In order to avoid the budget getting out so late that 
you cripple or certainly make extremely difficult the ability of the 
city officials to run a big, complicated city, the appropriators agreed 
upon a small change. I'm asking us to act on that already existing 
change.
  That change says that in every CR there will be, no matter what the 
CR says, and most CRs say very little, that the District will be 
allowed to spend its own funds at the levels that have been approved by 
its council, and by the Mayor, at next year's level. That has had 
enormously important good effects on the city. I believe we will be in 
the upcoming CR in the same way.
  As the District's Member of Congress, I have to contemplate the 
possibility, however, that even on December 15 the government could 
close down. And I would have to, indeed, look at what would be even, 
perhaps, better, that it didn't close down but there was yet another 
CR. Imagine trying to run a big city in the United States on multiple 
CRs. That's what I'm trying to avoid. That's what no Member of Congress 
intends.
  I also have had to take precautions for the possibility that even the 
CR that comes before us--I'm hoping next week--could fail. If that CR 
fails, I also have a bill that would allow the District to run whenever 
the Federal Government shuts down, this year and in perpetuity. Again, 
if I am right that there is no Member who would like to shut down any 
local jurisdiction, and especially the Nation's Capital, then I think 
this bill would take care of it.
  I have to go now to the Rules Committee for the CR, the next step. 
That's the next opportunity to draw this matter to the attention of the 
House and to, therefore, by amendment allow the District to spend for 
the entire fiscal year, not from CR to CR, but for the entire fiscal 
year.
  I don't think that is asking too much, and I've never had an 
objection when I've tried to keep the District open. It has been 
difficult to do. Three times the District almost shut down in recent 
history because we got that close to it.
  The problem for the city when the city almost closes down runs close 
to being like if it does close down. The city can't assume the best; it 
has to assume the worst, so it has to call out its staff and its lead 
officials to prepare for a shutdown even if a shutdown does not occur.
  The only responsible thing for the city to do right now with only 5 
session days left, at least as it now stands, because there is to be a 
recess beginning at the end of the month, is we've got to assume the 
status quo and we've got to assume the worst because it would be 
irresponsible not to. So, in addition, I have to put in a bill--that's 
in addition to the amendment--that would allow the District to remain 
open.
  To illustrate just how unintended would be a shutdown, the House 
needs to know that the Oversight and Government Reform Committee, on 
which I sit, has passed a bill that would give the District more 
autonomy over its local budget and, importantly, would keep the 
District from shutting down. That bill now is pending and could come to 
the floor at any point.

                              {time}  1300

  The President of the United States has in his budget a shutdown 
avoidance bill for the District, and the Senate Appropriations 
Committee has the same language in its bill. The House appropriators 
have taken the position that they do not believe the District should be 
shut down. Of course, they defer to the authorizers, as I indicated, 
and the Oversight Committee has legislation that has been voted out of 
committee that is now pending.
  I think any Member who has held local office--and by the way, I did 
not

[[Page 13570]]

hold local office before I came to Congress--have, I think, a better 
idea of what such a threat means to a local jurisdiction and how much 
it is at odds with what both sides understand to be the American 
approach to federalism, when local jurisdictions get to run their own 
localities and States and, by the way, get to raise their own funds. 
That is what the District has done, and it has done it well.
  These frequent shutdown threats have had a very disruptive effect on 
the city and on its employees and on its residents. It does something 
that we, I'm sure, appreciate that no elected official wants to have 
happen: it casts a pall of uncertainty right when you're looking 
forward to a budget for the coming year. That kind of uncertainty 
already has had its effect. Wall Street, for example, understands that 
the District budget is not final until it somehow is passed out of the 
Congress. The District pays a premium--it pays a price--for that 
because there are two bodies, not one, that get a say over its local 
budget.
  No city should ever have to wonder whether it will be shut down. 
Shutdowns really don't occur at the local level because residents won't 
let it occur. They are close enough to the people so that that is not a 
threat you could much get away with at the local level. Here we are 
some levels above that, and most Members and most Americans don't know 
that there is local legislation that is put in that peril as I speak.
  The District has about 630,000 residents. It's growing well. People 
are moving into the city, not out. There are cranes all over town; and 
much of this comes out of the excellent management of the city, out of 
the way the city has conducted its economic affairs, out of the fact 
that it has an independent chief financial officer, who cannot be fired 
because he disagrees with the council or with the Mayor and, therefore, 
has to tell the truth. It's all worked together to make the District 
the kind of jurisdiction that the Congress, at least, should have no 
concerns about and, I believe, has no concerns about.
  The price the District would pay is hard for me to make clear to 
Members because it would have to occur before they felt it. We have 
come close to feeling it; and almost 20 years ago, we did, in fact, 
feel it. There are some parts of your services to the people that 
continue, but huge parts cannot because the Congress has not passed the 
budget, not because the Congress objects to the budget and not because 
any Member of this House desires that outcome.
  This House does not mean to hold the District budget as hostage. If 
it did, there would have been something the District could do to get 
out of the hostage fight. So what makes this so frustrating is that 
there is nothing we can give, nothing we can do to extricate ourselves 
from a fight that is wholly inside baseball within this Chamber and the 
Chamber across the way. To be sure, I have contacted my Senate allies; 
but, frankly, this has to be done here. We've got to get agreement on 
both sides of the aisle to the simple proposition that those of us who 
believe in the great and important freedoms of the Framers would least 
want to be held responsible for closing down a local jurisdiction, one 
with which we have no beef.
  This country was established on a pedestal of federalism. One thing 
we understand is the difference between a local jurisdiction and its 
rights and responsibilities and ourselves. If anything, there are 
Members of this Chamber who would want some of what the Federal 
government does no longer done by the Federal Government at all but, in 
fact, to be the work of local jurisdictions. Many in this Chamber not 
only support but, indeed, believe that local jurisdictions do a better 
job at governing than does any institution at the Federal level. I can, 
therefore, find no set of principles here from any Member of Congress 
that would be in play when the decision is made on my amendment to the 
continuing resolution or on the bill that I will introduce as a 
fallback in case it does not occur.
  As we go home, perhaps earlier than expected, to ponder what to do 
with keeping the Federal Government open, I ask that Members bear in 
mind that they would be closing not only Federal agencies but the 
District of Columbia Government. In the name of the people of the 
District of Columbia, I ask you, wherever we stand on the Federal 
Government, to allow the District of Columbia to move forward, to 
govern itself, and to take care of its day-to-day business.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________