[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 1]
[House]
[Pages 1414-1417]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                           D.C. VOTING RIGHTS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. DesJarlais). 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.
  I rise to claim a half hour this afternoon to speak about the 
citizens of the Nation's Capital, who are full and equal citizens of 
the United States of America; that Nation's Capital that was born with 
the Nation itself, was born with the Constitution. Among the Nation's 
oldest citizens are the citizens of this very city where the Congress 
does its work.

                              {time}  1600

  Now, there is a complicated relationship between the Federal 
Government and the Nation's capital, but one thing has never been 
complicated: The Founders and every American ever since have understood 
that the citizens of the Nation's capital are entitled to the same 
constitutional rights and democratic rights as every other American 
citizen.
  I have come to the floor because I think many Members who are 
incumbents may have forgotten, and the largest class of new Members may 
be surprised by what they may be about to experience on this floor with 
respect to a local jurisdiction that they know nothing of and that they 
have nothing to do with.
  The new Members have come with a special distaste for Federal 
intervention, even into Federal affairs, and I respect that. I think 
that they, perhaps, would be among the first Members to recognize that 
the powerful Federal Government should never snatch local control from 
a local jurisdiction. Indeed, you may be about to experience something 
that is so much of a surprise that it will be a kind of an out-of-body 
experience when you're asked to actually consider a budget that this 
Congress had nothing do with, a budget for which every living cent was 
raised by the people I represent. You may be asked to overturn local 
laws simply because they are different from the laws you would have 
passed in your own local jurisdictions and where there is no Federal 
imprimatur on these local laws at all.
  Now, gradually, Congress has come to understand that the United 
States loses its own credibility as the leader of democracy around the 
world when it does not treat the citizens of a nation's capital as full 
and equal citizens. Congressional jurisdiction over the District of 
Columbia appears in the Constitution; but in 1973, Congress recognized 
that it was wrong--wrong--to rule the local jurisdiction from the 
Congress, so it delegated what we call home rule, or the right to self-
government, to the District of Columbia. That marked an historic 
realization that local residents must govern themselves locally, that 
it was wrong that the Nation's capital was the only place--this place 
where Congress meets--with no local democracy, where hundreds of 
thousands of its citizens had no say on their own local affairs.
  I know it's hard to believe that this could have ever occurred 
anywhere in the United States. Local control is among the very first 
principles of the founding of our country; but only in 1973 did your 
Nation's capital get an elected government, an elected Mayor, and an 
elected city council. A lot of that had to do with, to be fair, 
southern Democrats. Although the District for 150 years was a majority 
white district, the old-time southern Democrats saw the large African 
American population here as a reason to keep the District from having 
any local self-government. Republicans weren't much a part of that, and 
I hope they won't be much a part of it today.
  The promise to delegate the same kind of local control to the 
residents of the Nation's capital, as we assume, even without thinking, 
is the case for every other local jurisdiction, has been mostly kept. 
Mayor Vincent Gray runs the city. The City Council passes the laws--
except when Congress decides or, rather, when some Members of Congress 
decide to break the promise of democracy and intervene into the affairs 
of a local jurisdiction for one reason and one reason only: that they 
simply disagree with the decisions the local jurisdiction has made. 
Imagine if in your own districts, from this Congress, I disagreed with 
some of your decisions, and I could then overturn those decisions.
  My colleagues, I am asking you not to do to us what you would not 
have done to you. We ask only that you apply the same standard of 
democracy here in the Nation's capital that you insist on in your own 
districts. You cannot be for one standard of democracy for the Egyptian 
people, who are now rising up to demand democracy, without being for 
the same standard in your own Nation's capital. You wouldn't intervene 
and tell the Egyptians what to do even when you disagreed with it.
  We ask you in the name of the Founders, in the name of American 
democracy: Do not do that to the residents of the District of Columbia. 
It is impossible to justify a standard for democracy that makes an 
exception when you disagree with the decisions that have been made.
  I respect that new Members abhor Federal intervention even in areas 
of legitimate Federal concern. The new Members, some of them tea party 
members, would like to withdraw Federal intervention from areas long 
understood to be of some concern to the Federal Government. Their view 
is that, even in these Federal matters, there is too much Federal 
Government.
  What about Federal intervention where there is no Federal concern 
whatsoever? What about Federal intervention where there is no Federal 
money whatsoever but only billions of dollars raised by the local 
taxpayers? What about Federal intervention where there is no Federal 
law involved but only the law of the local jurisdiction?
  If you think there is too much Federal Government in what we do now,

[[Page 1415]]

surely you would not tolerate any Federal Government in the local 
matters of a local jurisdiction, especially in your own Nation's 
capital. We raise our own funds, $3 billion, which is more than that of 
several States. We want to spend it as we see fit, just as my 
colleagues do in their jurisdictions. Without any Federal intervention, 
they spend their own local funds as they see fit.
  Yet, yesterday, there was a shameful, shameful experience here. There 
was a hearing on a Federal bill. The Federal bill had to do with 
restrictions on Federal funding for abortions, restrictions that some 
of us thought were airtight as it was. I happen to be for the right of 
a woman to choose, but I have always respected my colleagues who have 
another point of view. That matter is being decided, as it should be 
because it involves Federal funding, in several committees of the 
Congress.
  What in the world was the District of Columbia doing in a bill having 
to do with Federal funding for abortions?

                              {time}  1610

  What was this language doing in that bill? And I am quoting: The term 
``Federal Government'' includes the government of the District of 
Columbia.
  It does not, my colleagues. We are a local government. We are not 
your colony. Declaring that the District of Columbia is part of the 
Federal Government for purposes of intervening into our local affairs, 
to tell us how to spend our local money, is an unprecedented violation 
of the District's right to self-government.
  The District of Columbia provision was entirely unrelated to the 
Federal abortion funding purposes of the bill. If there is to be 
abortion funding in a local jurisdiction--and there is today local 
funding throughout the United States, using local money, in local 
jurisdictions--if it can be done anywhere in the United States with 
local funds, how could anyone justify keeping the people of the 
District of Columbia from using their own local funds in precisely the 
same way?
  My Republican colleagues have come and taken control of the Congress 
on the wings of a promise of jobs--well, where's your jobs bill? That's 
what the people in my city want to know, some of them from poor wards 
which have 20 and 30 percent unemployment. Why are we looking at the 
District of Columbia, not for the jobs you said you would provide, but 
for how we spend our local funds on abortion for low-income women? What 
business is it of yours how we spend our local money?
  Get out of our affairs. You've got enough to tend to here. Why focus 
on one local jurisdiction? If you want to deal with Federal funding of 
abortion, fight fair. Deal with it here, man to man, woman to woman. 
Don't cross the line between democracy and autocracy and dictate; 
because that's what you're trying to do, dictate to a local 
jurisdiction how it's to spend its own local funds which you had 
nothing to do with raising.
  Shame on the Judiciary Subcommittee, because I asked for the right to 
testify simply to indicate why the District of Columbia should be taken 
out of this bill, and I was denied the right to testify. I have been in 
this body for two decades. I recall no circumstance in which a Member 
was denied the right to make a few remarks before the hearing, and 
certainly no circumstance of denial of a Member to make remarks when 
her district and her district alone was in the bill. What are you 
afraid of? Would not elementary fairness and say, All right, 
Congresswoman Norton, we don't have a lot of time for you, but you're 
in the bill, so here's 2 minutes? I was entitled to that in the name of 
fairness.
  But you have, many of you in this Congress have given 
disproportionate time to the District of Columbia. There's been 
introduced a bill to impose private school vouchers on the District and 
the District alone. What's wrong with you? What are you afraid of? If 
you're for vouchers, put a national vouchers bill on the floor.
  I know why there is no national vouchers bill on the floor; because 
there have been referendums in many of the States on vouchers, and 
every last referendum has been defeated because the people of the 
United States say over and over again that if you have one red cent, 
you better spend it on our public schools.
  There's already been a compromise on this issue. The District of 
Columbia was singled out for vouchers, even though we have the largest 
alternative public charter school system in the country. Would that the 
Members of this body, on either side of the aisle, had almost half of 
their children in alternative schools, public charter schools, that 
residents themselves have come forward to establish as an alternative 
to their public schools.
  Why pick on us? If vouchers are so good, I challenge you, put a bill 
on the floor. Let those who want it come forward. You are afraid. You 
don't have the guts. You pick on us because you can. It's wrong. A 
compromise was reached. The compromise allowed those who are now 
attending voucher schools to remain in those schools until they 
graduate. No compromise is enough for those who believe in a zero sum 
game.
  The District's home rule public charter school alternative is a model 
for the Nation. Moreover, charter schools enjoy the strongest kind of 
bipartisan support in this Congress. What's wrong with what we're 
doing? Why aren't we being complimented and commended for having a 
public charter school system where almost half our kids attend?
  In your district, you will find that your local school boards, your 
States keep charter schools from coming forward. That's not happened 
here, in part because during the last Republican Congress, under 
Speaker Gingrich, when he came and also discussed vouchers with me, I 
asked that we do a bill for charter schools instead, and out of respect 
for home rule, he did. Where is that respect for local control in this 
body today?
  Our charter schools have long waiting lists. We could use any money 
that the Congress has to help these children find places in our own 
charter schools. This is the last district you want to impose vouchers 
on, precisely because we've heard the call that when there are children 
who are not being well educated in at least some of your public 
schools--and I am a strong supporter of our public schools. I'm a 
graduate of the D.C. public schools, but I do concede that there are 
some children who don't have access to the best education. Well, we've 
done something for them. Don't punish us for it by imposing a voucher 
system on us that we do not want.
  Last year, I had asked that there be placed in the omnibus bill $5 
million for voucher parents to go to public charter schools, because 
when I met with my voucher parents, they said--or many of them said--
they had tried to get into our public charter schools and could not 
because of long waiting lists. That's where the demand is. That's where 
the need is.
  We want our choices to be respected. Sure, we respect that there may 
be jurisdictions who would, in fact, wish vouchers. Give them the 
opportunity. Don't impose vouchers on people who have chosen another 
alternative.
  I'm not sure why one local jurisdiction would command so much 
attention from a new majority who convinced the American people that 
they would put jobs first. I'm not sure why, but I am sure of this, 
that if you want to direct your attention someplace else, there must be 
a lot of places you can go besides the District of Columbia. I am going 
to be on this floor often making sure that Members understand who the 
District of Columbia is, what it expects, and how it expects to be 
treated.
  Now, I see on the floor the gentleman from New York (Mr. Serrano), 
and I appreciate that he's come down, because it's one thing for me to 
try to get all of the riders, the anti-home rule riders, unfair home 
rule riders off of the District of Columbia, but I certainly could not 
do that by myself.

                              {time}  1620

  I'm not even a member of the Appropriations Committee, but we sure 
had a true patriot on that committee who did not rest until he saw to 
it that all the riders, riders which violated the self-

[[Page 1416]]

government rights of the District of Columbia in the worst way, were 
removed.
  So citizens of the District of Columbia will be forever grateful for 
the work of Representative Serrano, the then chairman, now ranking 
member of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services which 
has jurisdiction over the District of Columbia as well. We will be 
forever grateful for the extraordinary way that he kept at it year by 
year until he had removed each and every one of those attachments.
  And I am pleased to relinquish some time to the gentleman, but I do 
need to know how much time I have.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman has 9 minutes.
  Ms. NORTON. I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Serrano).
  Mr. SERRANO. I thank you for the time, and I congratulate you for 
continuing to be the Representative that you are for the District of 
Columbia.
  Let me, in the short time that I have, be very brief and to the 
point. This may be one of the least-known issues in the United States, 
the whole issue of how Congress treats the District of Columbia. It is 
understood that there are constitutional provisions, but constitutional 
provisions for Congress to oversee the District of Columbia do not mean 
that you should mistreat the District of Columbia.
  And I think it's important to note something that happened when I 
became chairman of the subcommittee that oversees the District of 
Columbia, and that is that I took it very personal. For you see, like 
so many New Yorkers, I was not born in New York. I was born in Puerto 
Rico and I was raised in New York, and I represent the Bronx in 
Congress. Puerto Rico, as everyone should know, is a territory of the 
United States; some would say a colony of the United States. So the one 
thing I didn't want to do was be chairman of this committee and treat 
Washington, D.C., the way the Federal Government sometimes has treated 
my birthplace.
  Where I found myself, as so many other folks, was with the United 
States as this country you love and then Puerto Rico as your loving 
birthplace, knowing they are attached, but somehow Puerto Rico doesn't 
get treated equally. So I said publicly, to the amazement of some and 
to the laughter of others, that I was going to be the first Member of 
Congress to ever relinquish power. I didn't want more power. I wanted 
to give up power. I wanted less and less to do with the District of 
Columbia. Let them govern themselves.
  And so the first thing we did is we found out that we were not 
allowing the District of Columbia to have a sensible approach to the 
HIV/AIDS issue epidemic by not allowing a syringe exchange program. 
Now, it's important to note what we're talking about here. You have 
moneys that are raised locally by Washington, D.C., and then you have 
Federal dollars. And what happened was that Congress, for years, was 
saying that you can't use Federal dollars for certain programs, and you 
can't use local dollars either for certain programs. Now, this is the 
part that gets a little political, and I am going to try to be as fair 
and as balanced as possible, to quote somebody else.
  I believe that some Members of Congress who did not wish to discuss 
these issues back home or could not fight these issues back home used 
the District of Columbia as the experiment by which they could say, 
``Abortion, I'm against abortion.''
  ``Where?''
  ``In the District of Columbia.''
  ``Needle exchange.''
  ``Oh, I don't accept that.''
  ``Where?''
  ``In the District of Columbia.''
  ``Same-sex marriage?''
  ``Oh, I'm totally against that.''
  ``Where?''
  ``In the District of Columbia.''
  And they couldn't go back home and accomplish these things in their 
districts, but they imposed it on the District of Columbia.
  My role, I felt--and I did accomplish it, but unfortunately that may 
change soon--was that little by little I got bipartisan support from 
both parties to remove, under your leadership--and I'm being honest 
about that because you pushed, and you pushed and you pushed under your 
leadership--to remove these riders, to let them decide what to do with 
the HIV crisis, to let Washington, D.C.-elected council members and 
Mayor decide what to do with so many issues. That's all we did. We 
still kept the constitutional provisions. I don't go around rewriting 
the Constitution.
  Now what I think will happen--and we begin to see--is a desire to 
once again use Washington, D.C. as the experiment or the place where 
you do these things that you can't do back home.
  So I would say to my colleagues, if you're strong--and I respect you 
on the issue of school vouchers. If you are strong on the issue of not 
letting women make choices in their lives, if you're strong on the 
issues of what rights or lack of rights gays should have, if you're 
strong on all of these issues, fight them at the national level, fight 
them back home. Don't single out the District of Columbia as this 
experimental ground by which you can say that you accomplished these 
things when, in fact, you did not.
  The last one we had is the one that the public would really 
understand. The last one, which got lost in this budget that we just 
did, is the one that simply said that they could approve their own 
local budget without having Congress say ``yes'' or ``no.''
  Now, picture throughout this country--there are people watching us 
right now throughout this country who have local school board budgets, 
who have local fire department budgets, who have local town and city 
and county budgets. They get their dollars from Federal funds, from 
local funds, from State funds, but they don't come at the end of the 
budget process and say, Members of Congress from all over the world, 
can you please approve my budget? No. And I don't think they should be 
treated that way.
  So I hope that the changes we made remain in place. But above all, I 
hope that we respect the citizens, the American citizens who live in 
the District of Columbia, the residents who live here.
  And lastly, we were elected to be Members of Congress. But I was not 
elected to be the Mayor of Washington, D.C., and I was not elected to 
be a member of the Washington, D.C. City Council. They have their own 
government. They can govern themselves well. They have their own 
finances. Let's give them the respect they deserve. And I hope as time 
goes on, these victories that we had, not for us--it's not going to get 
me reelected in my district--but for the people in Washington, D.C., 
that they stay in place.
  And again, to my colleagues, if you want to make these points, make 
them back home, make them on the national level. Don't pick on the 
residents of D.C. to make your point.
  Ms. NORTON. I very much thank the gentleman not only for his remarks 
today but for the extraordinary work he did. He's right. I was pushing, 
but he was the real pusher. He was the man at the steering wheel, and 
he kept doing it until all those riders got off. And I want to thank 
the gentleman, yes, from New York, but who has not forgotten his roots, 
the gentleman's roots in Puerto Rico, because his roots have enabled 
him to empathize with people who may not have the kind of democracy he 
holds to be emblematic of this country.
  So you don't have to be one of us, it seems to me, to feel what we 
are feeling. You have to think about your own roots, about what matters 
to you, and particularly about the issues that have driven you in your 
life. And I think you will come to the conclusion that you should not 
expect for others what you would not have wanted for yourself.
  And when the gentleman from New York mentioned Puerto Rico, he also 
reminds me----
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman from the 
District of Columbia has expired.

[[Page 1417]]



                          ____________________