[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 157 (2011), Part 8]
[House]
[Pages 10872-10873]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                 HOME RULE FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from 
the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) for 5 minutes.
  Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, before I begin my remarks, I too want to 
acknowledge my good friend, Lynn Woolsey, for 20 really illustrious 
years in the Congress. I cannot imagine why she would want to end her 
illustrious career here so early. We will miss her.
  I should warn Members of Congress that a peculiar part of the 
Financial Services appropriations, which comes to the floor this week, 
will seem particularly strange, even inappropriate. It is a historical 
anachronism, and I can only apologize for it. We must quickly make sure 
that we enter the 21st century on the District of Columbia local 
budget. Yes, it is our budget. We raise it all in the District of 
Columbia. We are American citizens.
  Some have said, But the District of Columbia is mentioned and comes 
under the Constitution. So be it. I'm a constitutional lawyer; I 
concede that. But in their wisdom, after 150 years of shame, the 
Congress of the United States decided to grant home rule, as we call 
it, to the District of Columbia. So that instead of having a city of 
hundreds of thousands of Americans run by a Federal body, the Congress 
said that we delegate, we use our power under the Constitution to 
delegate to the District of Columbia the ability to elect its local 
officials, and raise its own money--we were raising our own budget all 
along. And spend its own money. For the most part Congress has adhered 
to this delegation by law. After all, we raise $4 billion. That's more 
than some States.
  It is, of course, the very essence of the principle of federalism 
embraced by both sides of the aisle of this body. Our federalism is 
what has held the Union together. We are a very different jurisdiction, 
so we have acknowledged different strokes for different folks. As if to 
reinforce that principle, a new crop of Republicans has come with 
federalism as a virtual original principle, giving new meaning to the 
notion of local control. Indeed, these new Republicans want the Federal 
Government out of even many Federal matters and to them turned back to 
the States. And so I imagine that the whole notion of the big foot of 
the Federal Government on the District of Columbia in local matters 
would particularly offend the new so-called ``tea party'' Republicans 
if they are adhering to their own principles.
  The appropriation that will come before this body already intrudes on 
the District of Columbia with one rider, a rider involving abortion 
services for local women. That's embedded in it. If this Congress holds 
to principle, there certainly will be no more.
  The world saw the reaction the last time the Congress tried to add 
attachments to the District of Columbia appropriation. It was in the 
budget deal of 2011. At a time when people in the Mideast were in the 
streets against their government, it was our government that went into 
the streets, and you saw elected officials from the top of the 
government, both the executive and the legislature, arrested in acts of 
civil disobedience because of intrusion on the way that the citizens of 
the District of Columbia spend their own local money. And the White 
House was not exempt. Residents also went to the White House and some 
were arrested right there because the White House agreed to the 2011 
budget deal at the very last minute.
  Now a new national organization composed of national organizations 
that themselves have millions of members across the United States have 
come forward to help us, and they have sent letters to Members of 
Congress saying that you will not be able to anonymously any more 
engage in intrusion on the local affairs of a local jurisdiction. We 
are activating our members to let them know if you intrude by voting 
for any attachment that takes away the ability of the District of 
Columbia to spend its own local funds as it sees fit. Local taxes, my 
friends, local issues. Not your business unless you raise the money.
  Some of these issues are controversial. That also is the essence of 
federalism. We, of course, bow to the differences among us instead of 
trying to take away our rights to embrace those differences. Much that 
occurs in your district is enough to raise the hairs of my own 
citizens. We would not want to deprive you of your rights. We ask that 
you do not deprive us of ours. There will be consequences.

[[Page 10873]]



                          ____________________