[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 15]
[House]
[Pages 21283-21285]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                  DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA APPROPRIATIONS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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. Mr. Speaker, I come to make a few remarks about the 2012 
omnibus appropriations conference report just passed and about one part 
of that report that has no place in any conference report or in any 
House appropriations bill. I refer, of course, to the part of that 
report called the D.C. appropriations bill.
  First, for all of the contention in this Congress, as we look at the 
2012 omnibus appropriations, there is certainly much for Democrats to 
be relieved about. There was a wholesale attack in the beginning of 
this Congress on everything from education to clean energy. But in the 
end, because Democrats know how to fight for what the American people 
tell them to fight for, health care reform was saved. Wall Street 
reform was saved. Clean energy was saved. Job training was saved. NPR, 
National Public Radio, was not defunded. Planned Parenthood, which 
offers reproductive services throughout our country, was not defunded. 
And Title X family planning was not defunded. The National Labor 
Relations Board can continue on with its rules concerning union 
elections. And these are only some of the many ingredients in this 
omnibus report that led Democrats to vote for it because it contained 
much for them to be proud of.
  Yes, in the give and take of appropriations, the kind of give and 
take there should have been more of during this Congress, there were 
some things in this appropriations bill for the Nation that I do not 
support and that generally Democrats do not support. Still, this bill 
was far more bipartisan than any other bill that has come before the 
112th Congress.
  Then, of course, there was the D.C. appropriations. From anywhere in 
America, the words ``D.C. appropriations'' do not sound right on the 
House floor. This is the place where we deal with the Nation's 
business, not the business of any local jurisdiction. But, of course, 
there are anachronisms here. There are intrusions here, and they go to 
matters affecting the District of Columbia.
  To be sure, there is much to be relieved about in the D.C. bill. This 
was not a total loss for the District. The bill funded our top three 
priorities--the extraordinary D.C. Tuition Assistance Grant program; 
the Department of Homeland Security headquarters, now going up in Ward 
8, a part of our city where there is great unemployment, and where this 
construction is doing a good deal of good; and funding for HIV/AIDS 
treatment in the District of Columbia.
  I want to thank my good friends, Mrs. Emerson and Mr. Serrano, 
particularly for the funding for HIV/AIDS education and treatment. This 
funding was included in the President's budget, but it didn't have to 
be in our appropriations bill. And, indeed, it was in neither the 
initial House nor Senate appropriations bill.
  I asked these two appropriators if they could possibly see to it that 
this funding was included because the District has the highest HIV/AIDS 
rate in the United States, in part because of the old needle exchange 
rider. Of course, this funding doesn't have to do with the needle 
exchange rider; this has to do with making sure that there is money for 
education and treatment. And so I want to thank Mrs. Emerson and Mr. 
Serrano because together they saw to it that this funding was in the 
bill, and I certainly want to thank Mrs. Emerson for the bipartisanship 
she has shown ever since she has been on the committee that handles the 
D.C. appropriations. Even on those occasions where she and I are in 
disagreement, she is always open to hearing from us.
  I am equally glad that the D.C. TAG program was funded by her 
subcommittee. Thousands of our children are going to colleges 
throughout the United States with funding from the Federal Government 
to make up for the fact that the District of Columbia does not have a 
State university system. If this funding had been shut off, it would 
have been a catastrophe for those in college and for those preparing to 
go to college.
  And of course I mentioned the Department of Homeland Security 
headquarters construction project. The headquarters is a priority for 
this administration, as it was for the last administration, and is also 
a priority for the District of Columbia because so many of the jobs 
will go to those in this region and, of course, in the District of 
Columbia.
  At the same time, we are justifiably angry about the D.C. abortion 
rider that was placed on our appropriations for the second year in a 
row, despite an energetic campaign from many of our allies and District 
residents to eliminate this rider.
  I see that my good friend, Mr. Hoyer, has come to the floor. While 
there is a great deal more I want to say about this bill and how it 
affects the District of Columbia, it is with pleasure to yield to my 
good friend, the Democratic whip.
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentlelady for yielding. I want to join her in 
saying that there were some minuses in this bill, and the minuses in 
this bill historically have been, as it relates to the District of 
Columbia, that the Congress has treated the District of Columbia as its 
own possession as opposed to an independent political jurisdiction that 
has been granted home rule, and the Congress ought to honor that home 
rule.
  As we urge democracies around the world or dictatorships around the 
world to honor the views of their people, the Congress of the United 
States ought to honor the wishes of the people of the District of 
Columbia. I always lament when we put in these individual provisions.
  I also want to say to the gentlelady from the District of Columbia 
how outstanding a job she does representing this jurisdiction in which 
we have the Capital of our country, the only capital of a free world 
country whose citizens do not have a representative in their parliament 
who has the authority and privilege of voting.

                              {time}  1610

  It's a lamentable fact that Mrs. Norton, who is speaking to us this 
afternoon, does not have that vote, and all of us ought to recognize 
that it's a blight on our democracy. But I congratulate her on 
representing the District of Columbia in such an extraordinarily 
positive fashion even without the vote. And it would be awesome what 
she could do, in addition to that, with the vote.
  And I rise, as well, to make a couple of comments, Mr. Speaker, about 
the business that is pending before this Congress. We have passed an 
omnibus appropriation bill, this bill that is on the desk here, 1,207 
pages, reported out last night, a conference report. I urged support of 
that bill. But it was not, of course, consistent with the pledges that 
were made to do appropriations bills discretely, that is, one after 
another. It's difficult to do that, unfortunately. It's the way we 
should do it, but we didn't do it this year, and we haven't done it in 
years past under Democratic and Republican leadership.
  But I am concerned, Mr. Speaker, that we have some critically 
unfinished business pending in the Congress of the United States. We 
passed a bill here through the House some days ago

[[Page 21284]]

which provided for the extension of the payroll tax cut that we gave to 
160 million Americans last year. Our economy is still not as robust as 
we want it to be, and the President of the United States has said let's 
continue that tax cut for middle-income Americans. We have not done 
that yet. And, unfortunately, the bill that we passed through the House 
had items in it that obviously the Senate did not agree with. The 
majority leader tried to put that bill on the floor for consideration 
by the Senate, and the minority leader objected to that consideration, 
so it has not moved.
  In addition to the middle class tax cut, we must not leave Washington 
without providing for an extension of the unemployment insurance. This 
great Nation, this wealthy Nation, should not abandon those who cannot 
find work through no fault of their own. If we do not act, then a 
million Americans may go off unemployment insurance and not have money 
to feed themselves, to assist in feeding their families, pay their 
housing bills and continue to afford to look for work. In the month of 
February, another 2 million will find themselves similarly situated.
  Lastly, we must pass an extension of the compensation of doctors who 
are serving Medicare patients. That is critical to do so that we can 
assure medical treatment for our seniors. There's not a Member of 
Congress who wants to see that happen, or at least none who say they 
want to see it happen.
  So I want to join Ms. Norton as we stand here today as we are leaving 
for the weekend, but I also want to call the House's attention to a 
concern that I have. The majority leader, Eric Cantor, announced to us 
the schedule this afternoon and said that we would not be meeting 
today, later in the day, after our business, which is now concluded, 
that we would not be meeting on Saturday or Sunday, and that we may 
come back on the 19th, which is Monday.
  Now, one of the things I was concerned about is that he said on the 
floor that it is difficult to predict if or when we need to return. 
Now, he meant by that that he wasn't sure when the Senate was going to 
act. I understand his meaning. But I will tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I 
hope the American people will demand that we return and that they will 
demand that we act before we adjourn sine die, before we conclude this 
first session of the Congress.
  Yes, Christmas is coming, Hanukkah, Kwanza and other celebrations, 
but there will be no celebration for those people who cannot find work 
and who believe that the support system that this country has extended 
to them will be ripped out from under them.
  So I am here on the floor to join my colleague in talking about the 
omnibus appropriation bill to say that I'm pleased that we passed it. 
It will keep our government operating. It has not yet passed, but 
hopefully in the next 48 hours the Senate will have acted--hopefully in 
the next 24--on the conference report, and we'll get it ready to send 
it to the President.
  I am very hopeful that all 435 Members of this House and that all 100 
Members of the United States Senate are committed to the proposition 
that we will not leave this town and that we will not abandon our 
responsibilities to assure the adoption of the three measures which I 
have referenced.
  The middle class tax cut will affect 160 million Americans. I frankly 
think we should pay for that with a slight surcharge, not a sacrifice, 
just an additional contribution by some of the best off in America, not 
because of class warfare but because they want, I'm sure, to help their 
fellow citizens who need help.
  We are committed to the proposition that we will not leave here 
without making sure that that middle class tax cut continues, that 
unemployment insurance is available and that doctors will be 
compensated.
  So I thank the gentlelady for yielding for this comment. And in 
closing, let me say that I wear a yellow ribbon. There's a great song 
called ``Tie a Yellow Ribbon 'Round the Ole Oak Tree.'' We wear that 
yellow ribbon for the troops that have been overseas defending freedom 
in harm's way. We wear that yellow ribbon to remind them of how pleased 
we are that so many of them are coming home.
  The President has met his commitment to end our participation in the 
war in Iraq and bringing our troops home. We welcome them home. We 
honor them for their service. And we pledge to them our continuing care 
for their needs resulting from their service.
  And I thank the gentlelady for yielding this time to call our 
attention to the important work that is yet to be done in this first 
session of this Congress.
  Ms. NORTON. Well, I thank you, Mr. Hoyer. It was a very special 
pleasure to yield to the man who is second in the Democratic leadership 
here in the House. And I think that it was particularly appropriate, as 
we close out this session, for our Democratic Whip, a Democratic 
leader, to come to the floor to remind us of unfinished business.
  It was a great pleasure to be able, therefore, to give time to Mr. 
Hoyer, who speaks for us all. And I thank him for speaking not only to 
the Nation's business, but for speaking to the business of the District 
of Columbia. He never neglects the City. He has been a great champion 
of the District and for freedom for the people of the Nation's Capital.
  Mr. Hoyer essentially spoke about the unfinished business of the 
112th Congress. I was relieved at what the Democrats were able to 
accomplish in this conference report, when you consider that almost 
everything of great priority for us was under attack. So, yes, we are 
relieved.
  But what Mr. Hoyer has reminded us about this evening is that there 
is unfinished business that should not allow Congress to go home to 
celebrate its own personal Christmas with a clear conscience until it 
deals with this part of the Nation's business--the payroll tax that 
will go up unless we extend it and unemployment benefits for 6 million 
people. These would have been routine ingredients, the payroll tax, for 
example, that economists tell us are ingredients essential to keep the 
economy from collapsing, because the money from the tax cut is going to 
be instantly spent by those who receive it.

                              {time}  1620

  And if the payroll tax goes up instead of staying put, there will be 
a full 1 percent decrease in the already shallow growth of the economy.
  Unemployment benefits do precisely the same way. For every four 
people looking for a job, there's only one job available today. Who 
would want to deny unemployment benefits?
  And as for Medicare physician reimbursements, we already have too 
many physicians unwilling to take Medicare patients. The last thing we 
want to do is to leave that situation, which would leave many of our 
seniors with nobody to go to.
  Mr. Speaker, four D.C. residents were arrested this morning in front 
of the Longworth building to protest congressional action to keep the 
District from spending its own local funds as it sees fit--in this 
case, for abortion services for low-income women. No one asked these 
residents to be arrested. There was a picket line. I went to Longworth, 
there on Independence Avenue, joined the picket line, left, and then 
was informed that four people had decided to engage in civil 
disobedience in order to send the Congress the message that we will 
never go away quietly so long as you treat the residents of the 
District of Columbia as second-class citizens.
  These four joined 72 people who were arrested when Congress re-
imposed this very rider in April. Our residents have been successful in 
this sense: While there is one rider, the abortion rider, there are no 
others. And yet there were attempts to put on more riders, more 
attachments--at odds with what the residents of the District of 
Columbia themselves have enacted--but those were not added. There were 
riders that would have kept the District from using needle exchange 
programs, indispensable to eliminating the spread of HIV/AIDS. There 
were promises of riders on the District's marriage equality law. And 
there was a promise of a rider to eliminate all of the District's gun

[[Page 21285]]

safety laws. Because the District residents did not go silently the 
last time, we have been able to beat back those riders.
  We are relieved that the Federal Government didn't shut down because 
the District government would have shut down on Friday had the Federal 
Government shut down, although the District of Columbia is no part of 
this fight. The District passed its local budget months ago. However, 
the Congress treats the District paternalistically and makes it bring 
its budget to people who know nothing about its budget and have 
contributed nothing to its budget in order for the Congress--people 
from other districts--to sign off on the local budget of a city not 
their own. So because the District of Columbia budget was locked within 
one of the appropriations that had not been passed--the District faced 
a possible shutdown.
  I have had a bill here pending for many months to the effect that if 
the government shuts down, the District can continue to spend its own 
local funds. That bill has not passed. It is amazing to even 
contemplate the possibility that the local government would have been 
shut down over issues having nothing to do with the local government. 
Well, there is only one way to avoid that problem, and it is a way that 
we are making at least some progress on, and that is to give the city 
the right to pass its own budget and be done with it.
  We are pleased that there is some interest in this issue, especially 
the bill Mr. Issa of California has introduced to give the District 
budget autonomy, a bill that mirrors my own in many ways, with, of 
course, the deference his bill gives to the Congress. But it would go a 
long way toward avoiding shutdowns, toward allowing the District, when 
it in fact passes its own budget, timely and balanced, to go forward, 
without coming to Congress, to have its budget done before school 
opens, to avoid having to pay a premium to Wall Street because the 
Congress forces the city to bring its budget to the Congress, thereby 
creating uncertainty for those who hold our bonds. So there is a way, 
and it is a way that we will never give up until we get that way.
  May I ask how much time remains?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Pearce). The gentlewoman has 3 minutes 
remaining.
  Ms. NORTON. So as the residents of the District of Columbia look at 
the national appropriations, they will see the national conference 
report and they will have much to be grateful for because the wholesale 
attack on everything from education to health care reform did not 
succeed. Yes, there were also some extraordinary and important things 
in the D.C. appropriations, even as the city is in anguish that the 
Congress would dictate to the city how it must spend its own local 
funds. The city is justifiably angry that there was one rider, one 
amendment at odds with our own preferences, forced upon us in the way 
of authoritarian governments. At the same time, other riders that would 
have been terribly destructive, we were able to fight off.
  The D.C. funding had in fact a salutary effect and we are mindful of 
the needs of the Nation and of the city, especially the funding for the 
Homeland Security headquarters in ward 8, a ward with a high 
unemployment rate. DC TAG, which is the program that allows our 
children to go to State colleges around the country because we do not 
have a State university system. And we are especially appreciative of 
the funding for HIV/AIDS, to engage in education and treatment in a 
city that has a high AIDS rate.
  The Appropriations Committee has tried to overcome the partisanship 
of the 112th Congress. It did so to a fair extent in the general 
conference report, and it certainly did so on our appropriations, the 
D.C. appropriations, notwithstanding the issue that we will continue to 
take on with our appropriations until our appropriation is ours alone, 
our appropriation, our money.
  My thanks to those who, in civil protest, civil disobedience were 
arrested this morning because of the abortion rider on the D.C. 
appropriations. And my thanks as well to the hunger strikers, who for 
the first time in the 210-year history of the District of Columbia made 
a very special sacrifice to indicate how intolerable it is for the 
600,000 residents of the Nation's capital to be treated as second-class 
citizens.
  Happy holidays to all Members of the House. May we have a bipartisan 
year next year.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

  

                          ____________________