[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 106 (Friday, July 15, 2011)]
[House]
[Pages H5120-H5122]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                      CONGRESS: DON'T TREAD ON DC

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. West). Under the Speaker's announced 
policy of January 5, 2011, the gentlewoman from the District of 
Columbia (Ms. Norton) is recognized for 30 minutes.
  Ms. NORTON. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
  On any given day, if the American people listen to the speakers on 
the floor of the House of Representatives, they will come to the 
conclusion that many Members sure do hate government. At the very 
least, they certainly don't want the Federal Government involved in the 
lives of the American people in any way. Well, I've come to the floor 
not to give a lecture, but to offer an explanation because the American 
people are probably puzzled at something they recently saw.
  They saw the residents of the Nation's Capital embarking on what I 
must tell you is a new phase of an old struggle: to preserve the right 
to local self-government--a battle residents won almost 40 years ago.
  You would think that the speakers on the floor who hate government 
would be very quick to say what is also true about themselves. They 
like local government. They don't want the Federal Government involved 
with local government or certainly interfering with local government. 
Yet the very same speakers are the prime movers of interference with 
the local government of the District of Columbia.
  So the residents of your Nation's Capital have embarked on a new 
phase of their struggle. I'm not talking about the storied fight for 
voting rights and statehood, because many Americans now know that this 
is the only jurisdiction in the United States whose residents pay 
Federal income taxes, go to war--have fought in every war since the 
Nation was created--but don't have full voting rights in the Congress.
  No, I'm not talking about that because, unfortunately, today, the 
city is forced to fight simply to maintain local government--the local 
rights that are unquestioned everywhere in the United States except by 
some on the floor of this House.
  After Republicans took control of the House in January, their 
obsession with the DC government became so fierce that the mayor and 
members of the city council--almost the entire legislative and 
executive branches--were arrested for sitting down in the streets in 
front of the Capitol in an act of civil disobedience. The world, at 
that time, was focused on people in the streets of the Middle East, who 
were demanding freedom, but was riveted by civil disobedience in the 
U.S. capital city, which included the highest officials of our own 
local government.
  The sit-down occurred after the city was caught in a Federal 
Government dispute over cuts in the Federal budget, which had nothing 
to do with the city. The city government barely avoided being shut 
down, although the city's local funds were no part of the fight, but 
the Congress would not even allow the city to spend its own local funds 
to keep the city open.
  That is the very essence of autocracy.
  Congress still holds onto the antiquated practice of approving the 
city's locally raised budget, a budget that the Congress did not put 
one red cent in--$4 billion raised by the residents of the District of 
Columbia.

                              {time}  1500

  And House Republicans repeatedly refused my amendments to let the 
District government stay open by spending its own local funds. House 
Republicans have long rationalized such irrational treatment of the 
residents of the Nation's capital, but holding the District hostage in 
a Federal shutdown fight was a new nadir.
  Republicans finally succeeded in getting hefty budget cuts in the 
2011 appropriations bill, but still refused to seal the deal until 
their demands to take some of the District's home rule were met. They 
insisted on two riders. One prohibited the District from using its own 
local funds for abortion services for low-income women--which is done 
in 17 red and blue States because it's a matter of local money and 
local law. And they imposed private school vouchers on the city because 
that was the pet project of another Republican, Speaker John Boehner. 
Mind you that this city has almost half of its children going to public 
charter schools. It's about the last city in the world that you would 
impose an alternative school system on since it has already grown its 
own home-rule alternative.
  The bold autocratic insistence of these anti-home-rule provisions, as 
well as the near shutdown of the city government, finally led to an 
equally bold response from the city. You have to imagine that only the 
most provocative actions could have led the mayor of a great city and 
other elected officials to be escorted away in handcuffs.
  House Republicans have devoted their first months in power to slicing 
away at the city's local home rule. They took control of the House on 
the promise of jobs, but have yet to introduce a jobs bill. From the 
first day of the 112th Congress, the House Republican majority has been 
preoccupied--mesmerized--with the internal affairs of a city whose 
local government, like many other jurisdictions, differs with them on 
some matters. This is America, get used to it. With heartbreaking 
audacity, they began by withdrawing the District's vote on the House 
floor in the Committee of the Whole. And this vote was only granted by 
rule--which is why they could withdraw it--but it had been approved by 
the Federal courts. Thus, Republicans in this House have withdrawn a 
legitimate vote of American citizens who pay

[[Page H5121]]

their full freight in Federal taxes and have fought in every war since 
the Republic was established, including the war that established the 
Republic itself.
  After taking DC's limited vote, Republicans turned to taking away the 
city's home rule. A House-passed harsh anti-choice bill affecting the 
Nation's women contained an unprecedented prohibition affecting only 
the District of Columbia. Instead of the DC abortion rider--you have to 
add these riders on an annual basis--Republicans want a permanent law 
barring DC from spending its local funds on abortion services for low-
income women. Imagine the Federal Government telling a local 
jurisdiction that, forever, it can no longer spend its local money on 
local matters that dozens and dozens of local jurisdictions spend money 
on every year and on a matter that is fully constitutional.
  Most Americans support the right to abortion, although many others 
oppose it. In the District of Columbia, we respect those differences. 
Federal funds already may not be used to pay for abortions. But no one 
questions the long-standing practice of the 17 States I mentioned that 
use their own funds for abortions for low-income women. Now I 
understand that the anti-home-rule riders that some Members add to the 
DC appropriations bill are controversial. That's why we have a Federal 
union. There are some things we can do at the local level that you do 
not do in the Nation as a whole. We ought to have that respect for the 
residents of the District of Columbia just as we give that respect to 
every other jurisdiction.
  This struggle continues now that the 2012 appropriation season has 
begun. The Appropriations Committee-approved bill includes only one DC 
rider, but that of course is one rider too many. However, it does show 
that there is some response to an expanded coalition that's been 
formed, and yes, to the civil disobedience and protest of the residents 
of the District of Columbia. More riders could still come on the House 
floor, but then more protests will come.
  So great, though, is the continuing danger of interference with the 
District's right to govern itself that a national coalition of 100 
organizations which, together have millions of members, has come 
forward with a weapon DC residents do not have. The national 
organizations have activated their members who live in congressional 
districts to warn Members of Congress that if they meddle in the 
affairs of the District of Columbia, their members will make it known 
throughout their districts. Most Members cast these votes almost 
anonymously. We know about them here in the Nation's capital, but it 
was hard to get word of them out. Now organizations are fanning out 
across the country telling on those, as we say, who meddle with the 
affairs of a local jurisdiction instead of attending to the affairs of 
their own district.
  Nor has the District focused only on the Republicans. When it comes 
to local government, whoever makes a move is, as far as the residents 
of this city are concerned, subject to the same kind of protest. So 
hundreds of residents, just a few weeks ago, went to the White House 
and held a huge rally, the largest yet. Thousands of people from 
throughout the country and from all over the world were there and saw 
unprecedented civil disobedience right at the White House to protest 
the fact that the President of the United States, who is strongly 
supported in this city, nevertheless signed the anti-home-rule 2011 
budget deal. I believe that this indicates that the residents are 
acting in a principled manner, not in a political manner. And they are 
saying as clearly as they can that they will not surrender any part of 
the home rule it took them 128 years too long to get. Can you imagine 
that the Nation's capital, until only 38 years ago, did not have a 
local mayor or a local city council, and was run by three commissioners 
appointed by the President of the United States? That had a lot to do 
with Southern Democrats who got a hold of the ``District Committee''--
since abolished. Although the District was a majority white city until 
the 1960s, they kept the District from getting home rule and voting 
rights because there were a sizeable number of African Americans in 
this city. That's just how deep this went. Republicans have taken over 
the role, not because of race, but entirely because of politics. 
Whichever way you cut it, they take away our rights. And when you don't 
have your rights, you see no difference. You don't ask the motive. All 
you know is everybody else has their rights, and you are an American 
citizen and you are entitled to the very same rights. You raised the 
funds. You and your local jurisdiction, you alone, get to say how those 
funds will be spent.

                              {time}  1510

  The Congress of the United States finally ceded its power over the 
District of Columbia in 1973. It took the civil rights movement to get 
it done. Essentially it shamed the southern Democrats into finally 
giving the District home rule. Actually, protesters overthrew the South 
Carolina Democrat who was in charge of the District Committee, and when 
the District Committee lost that Democrat, there were enough Members of 
Congress who believed in democracy so that the District got home rule. 
The city makes its own decisions on virtually everything, until 
somebody in the Congress pops up and says, ``That isn't in my 
ideological playbook, so you can't do it.'' As un-American as it gets.
  Interestingly, many of the newest Members of Congress are among the 
most robust, the loudest, in making clear that they do not support 
Federal interference. I quote from the Republican Study Committee, 
which has a 10th Amendment task force, and I quote it as saying that 
the intent of the Republican majority's was ``to usher in a new era of 
federalism and to disperse power from Washington back to regions, 
States, local governments and individuals.'' How can people who have 
that principle now put the big foot of the Federal Government on the 
local government right here in their face, in defiance of their own 
professed principles? You can't have that principle as stated and not 
apply it right here as you vote on matters affecting the District of 
Columbia.
  Remember that we're only talking about controversial issues: issues 
like marriage equality or reproductive choice or gun safety. These are 
controversial issues, but we allow people in local jurisdictions to 
vote one way or the other on how they want to handle these issues. Take 
their votes against DC needle exchange programs, for example, which 
have kept HIV/AIDS in large cities and small rural areas from being 
transmitted. What happened? DC got the highest HIV/AIDS rate in the 
United States. The DC needle exchange rider is an example of a rider 
that has killed people, that led to terrible suffering, that led to 
people getting HIV/AIDS. What did the people in the House of 
Representatives, in the Senate of the United States, have to do with 
the desire of the people of the District of Columbia to use the same 
weapons that are now used throughout the United States to control this 
terrible virus?
  So those who want to dismantle our own self-government, our home 
rule, piece by piece, they should be prepared to fight and they better 
be prepared to fight where they live for they are now being targeted 
where they live, and not because, frankly, of these underlying issues 
that are very controversial but because of the overarching principle of 
self-government, and local self-government at that.
  The first trial of the 74 residents who were arrested is going on 
right now. A number of those arrested paid a fine and chose not go to 
trial. Some of them are insisting on going to trial so that the point 
will never be lost. The first is an advisory neighborhood commissioner, 
Keith Silver. He pleaded not guilty on charges of unlawful assembly and 
disorderly conduct. He faces up to $250 in fines and 90 days in jail. 
He would not be the first American. When I was a very young woman, I 
was a member of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, and 
going to jail seemed to us to be just about the right thing to do when 
we were denied our rights. Now the only Americans denied such basic 
rights, ironically, are right here in the Nation's Capital.
  May I inquire of the remaining time?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman has 10 minutes remaining.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, what has been most encouraging to us is that 
we

[[Page H5122]]

now know we are not in this fight alone. Imagine having to fight 
against the almighty Congress when you are one jurisdiction, obviously 
without the means to let the entire country understand what is 
happening, and so most Americans had no idea until the arrests took 
place. Just as the District has been fighting for a vote in the 
people's House, the House of Representatives, and over and over again 
we found that most Americans thought we had the vote. There has been a 
nationwide survey done, and it is very interesting. It shows that more 
than 60 percent of the American people are for voting rights for the 
District of Columbia, and that survey has been cut open so as to see 
whether there are differences as to where people live, north and south, 
whether people have served in the military or not, whether people go to 
church or not, and the encouraging thing to those of us who live in the 
District of Columbia is that no matter how you cut it, Americans 
believe that if you pay Federal income taxes, you ought to have a vote 
in this body.
  Yes, I have a vote in committee. Yes, I can speak as I am now. Yes, I 
have every privilege of the House--except that privilege that created 
the Nation, the privilege to vote, to cast the final vote. But, I have 
gone to funerals of young men who died in Iraq and Afghanistan, yet I 
could not vote yea or nay on whether they should have been there in the 
first place. Surely, if the American people realized that, there would 
be shame cast on the Congress.
  Now the District is struggling, not for the voting rights and 
statehood it deserves but for the home rule and self-government it 
already has. It is far too late in history for any Americans to be 
struggling for the right to govern themselves at the local level as 
they see fit and to spend the funds they raise at the local level in 
any way they choose. That, my friends, if you are looking to the 
Founders, you will find that that was for them a first principle.
  And so other Americans have now come to our assistance, and the 
difference between them and the residents whom I represent is that they 
have that vote on the floor of this House while we do not. As Members 
voted to take away some of the local rights of the district I represent 
every Member of this body could vote on that matter except the Member 
who represented the Nation's Capital that was the object of that vote.

                              {time}  1520

  You will not find any American anywhere who will say that that 
represents what they believe or what our country stands for. That is 
why every Member of this House has been sent or will be sent a letter, 
and I am reading from just one part of it, because this letter comes 
from the coalition of a hundred different national organizations: 
``Should lawmakers continue to advance attacks on the District of 
Columbia's autonomy, we will make certain that our members--in every 
District--know how their representatives are spending their time in 
Washington: meddling in the affairs of a local jurisdiction, the 
District of Columbia, rather than focusing on their own residents and 
on the Nation's true, pressing business.''
  I have spent my entire service in the Congress trying to rid the 
District appropriation of anti-home rule attachments. We were 
successful in clearing the DC appropriation bill of all of the anti-
democratic attachments for the first time last Congress. We did not 
engage in that fight only to have them put right back on. We did not 
enjoy seeing Congress play shutdown chicken with the American people 
either, and Congress must not even think about shutting down a local 
government ever again over a Federal fight again.
  During the civil rights movement we called our approach passive 
resistance to tell the world we were nonviolent. But that was all that 
was passive about us. The operative word was ``resistance.'' Once we 
resisted, civil rights workers found we were not alone. Today, District 
residents are joined by allies who stand with us and are working with 
us. On this we have no doubt. The American people are with District 
residents when we say local laws are for local residents alone, and 
most especially when we insist that when it's our money, we mean ours 
and only ours.
  The Nation's Capital should be the 51st State by now. The city's 
taxpaying citizens should at least have a vote in Congress, the very 
Congress that demands that the citizens who live here abide by the laws 
that the Congress enacts.
  DC residents and their local leaders are fighting with all they have. 
What they need most now, and what I am gratified that they are 
receiving, is the support of other Americans who do have the basic 
rights that the citizens of the Nation's Capital are still seeking. 
``Don't tread on DC.''

                          ____________________