[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 160 (2014), Part 7]
[House]
[Pages 10087-10089]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                   HOME RULE FOR THE NATION'S CAPITAL

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Bentivolio). 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, I have come to the floor this afternoon to 
take the opportunity to fully inform Members--and, yes, also members of 
the public--of the actual rights of the people who live in the District 
of Columbia, who demand respect for their local laws the way every 
Member would demand respect for the local laws of her own jurisdiction, 
and yes, if necessary, to call out Members who violate their own 
principles of local control of government against Federal interference.
  I am very pleased that very few bills that trample on the local 
rights of the people who live in the Nation's Capital have been signed 
into law and that very few have gotten out of this House even recently. 
Part of that is because we stand up and fight, but we are at some 
disadvantage. The District of Columbia delegation consists of me, and 
we have no Senators. But no red-blooded American would sit down while 
somebody tramples over her local jurisdiction without getting up and 
saying something about it and, yes, without doing something about it.
  I want to be fair to my colleagues because some of this, I think, has 
to do with simple ignorance. Some of it has to do with a blind spot. 
The blind spot is very troubling. The blind spot means that principles 
that easily soak into them with respect to every single district in the 
United States somehow haven't made it into their hearts or their heads 
when it comes to the District of Columbia. It troubles me, but I 
believe that, when Members think about their own principles, they will 
think before they simply jump into the jurisdiction of another Member's 
district.
  Particularly when this happens repeatedly, we think that the 
constituents of the Member should be informed, and we try to inform the 
constituents. Indeed, we inform the entire State where the constituents 
are from. If a Member insists upon inserting herself into the affairs 
of another jurisdiction many miles from home, and if she needs to be 
called out, that is what we have to do.
  Congress 40 years ago passed the Home Rule Act of the District of 
Columbia. It is too bad it took that long to pass. The culprits there 
were Democratic and Republican, and indeed, for much of the 20th 
century, whether they were Democrats or Republicans. The Democrats 
finally got understood, and the Home Rule Act of 1973 was passed. That 
act gave all local affairs of the District of Columbia to the local 
government--to the council and the Mayor of the District of Columbia. 
My job is to see to it that Members remember the Home Rule Act of 1973 
and do not invade the local jurisdiction of our city, Washington, D.C.
  I was a little troubled, although I see no real effect thus far, 
about a memorandum that came from David Mork--the Chief of Staff of 
Representative Peter Roskam, who is the chief deputy whip for the House 
GOP--inviting Members to insert special provisions, even of a partisan 
or an ideological nature, into the upcoming appropriations bills. We 
have checked, and, actually, we have seen very little of that so far. 
Our concern, of course, is with such inserts that affect the District 
of Columbia.
  By the way, it is interesting that there would be a whole memo 
inviting Republicans to do so. They haven't done so very much on the 
appropriations bills that have come through thus far, but I think that 
probably has a lot to do with how little policy the Republicans have 
been able to get through the Congress of the United States. So, when 
you are driven to appropriations bills for policy, you have been driven 
to a very low level for a lawmaker. The bait hasn't been much bitten, 
and I am pleased of that for the Nation. I simply want to say, if such 
ideological policies attached to appropriations are inappropriate for 
national appropriations, imagine how totally unsuitable they are for an 
appropriation that may affect the District of Columbia.

                              {time}  1430

  One may wonder, what is the District of Columbia local appropriations 
bill doing in the Congress of the United States?
  Very good question. The District of Columbia wants budget autonomy--
but we haven't quite gotten there yet, and I very much appreciate that 
we have had Republican and Democratic support for the proposition that 
the $6 billion we raise in the District of Columbia is for us and us 
alone to say anything about.
  Imagine, in a Tea Party Congress, how they would react if somebody 
had anything to do with their local funds.
  Well, that is exactly how I am going to react. I am not going to 
stand for it. I am not going to stay quiet for it, and I am going to 
see that your constituents know you are meddling into somebody else's 
business, in violation of your own principles.
  It continues to happen, but it happens at far less of a rate than it 
used to. When I first came to Congress, I used to have to stand on the 
House

[[Page 10088]]

floor for hours at a time rebutting attempts to attach to the D.C. 
appropriation anti-local control amendments. Those are far, far fewer.
  Appropriators don't like it. The appropriators simply want to get 
their appropriation bills done. But occasionally, some of these 
attachments will come through--to date, only one remains.
  . . . Others come through as freestanding bills. And I appreciate 
that the Speaker doesn't often let those bills get to the floor.
  But we feel quite insulted when a Member decides to introduce a bill 
to, essentially, erase what the local government has put into law. A 
favorite one of those issues that continues to apparently invite such 
meddlers is, of course, D.C.'s gun laws.
  The District of Columbia has some of the strongest gun laws in the 
United States. After all, we are a big city. We are the capital of the 
United States. Foreign dignitaries routinely are in our streets. Every 
Cabinet official is routinely in our restaurants, and we don't need a 
lot of guns in a city like this.
  We had an even stricter gun law. That was struck down by the Supreme 
Court of the United States. We believe in obeying the Supreme Court and 
in obeying Federal law, so the local government rewrote its local gun 
laws.
  We still have among the strictest gun safety laws in the United 
States, and the courts have upheld these new gun laws every time they 
have been attacked. They have been attacked in the courts.
  Our gun registration requirement was recently attacked in the courts, 
and the courts upheld the District's gun registration requirement.
  The District's ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines was 
attacked in the courts, and the courts upheld the District's ban on 
assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.
  Recently, somebody shot a gun outside of the White House that reached 
the window, the upstairs, the second-floor window of the White House. 
You surely wouldn't want a lot of those running around the District of 
Columbia, and the courts have understood that.
  Yet, there will be attempts to go at the city on guns. I don't care 
about guns in your district. I ask you not to care about guns in mine.
  Yet, Representative Jim Jordan of Ohio has introduced a bill that 
would wipe out all the gun laws of the District of Columbia. Can you 
imagine that?
  Take every last one of them and wipe them off the books.
  Those are local laws passed to protect our local citizens. What is he 
doing in this?
  We keep winning in court, and this Member, Representative Jim Jordan 
of Ohio, has introduced only five bills in this Congress. He needs to 
think about national bills, not bills that trample on the rights of the 
citizens of the District of Columbia.
  We have made a decision, the courts have upheld our decision. I 
thought that is what the Framers founded the United States of America 
for, to allow local governments to remain local, to have a Federal 
Government that took care of things that were not local.
  This is local. The gun laws of the District of Columbia protect 
650,000 people who live here and visitors who come here. They have 
nothing to do with Representative Jim Jordan's district.
  Now, to the credit of the majority, this bill has not moved. It 
hasn't moved in committee, and it certainly hasn't moved to the floor. 
But we resent that it was filed at all because it didn't have to do 
with anybody's district except the District of Columbia.
  The Member who was just on the floor, Rep Phil Gingrey of GA has 
introduced an interesting amendment, Representative Phil Gingrey of 
Georgia, expressing the sense of the Congress--now, understand a sense 
of the Congress measure has no legal effect. And he has, when 
questioned by the Court, indicated that this was ``a message bill.'' So 
he is a messaging bill not using his own constituents but using mine.
  This messaging bill says that Active Duty military personnel, in 
their private capacity, should be exempt from the gun safety laws of 
the District of Columbia, but not from any other district.
  For the third year in a row, I am going to get this one taken care 
of. Twice he introduced it as a part of the defense authorization bill, 
and twice I have been able to have it taken off.
  It got passed again in this House. I am going to get it taken off 
again.
  In this country, we respect local control. If you were to ask me 
which side of the aisle speaks most vociferously about local control, I 
will tell you that side of the aisle. So when Republicans interfere 
with local matters of the District of Columbia, they are in violation 
of some of their most threshold principles.
  Representative Jordan, interestingly, introduced, and I think this 
may not have had to do with the fact that it was the 1-year anniversary 
of the Newtown shooting, but that is when he introduced the bill. There 
were services all over the country then.
  I think he just introduced it because that is when he thought of it, 
and it was on his National Rifle Association checklist.
  Most recently, Representative Mark Meadows of North Carolina has 
introduced a bill that would keep the Federal Government from 
deducting, as an employer, the union dues of Federal employees. It is a 
labor right. If you vote that your employer can deduct your dues, he 
can do so, private and public employer.
  Well, I wouldn't be on this floor if this were only a national bill. 
That is consistent with Representative Meadows' views. But 
Representative Meadows has reached into the District of Columbia.
  Now he says, not only Federal employees, but he is saying that the 
District of Columbia government cannot also deduct union dues, as the 
union members have asked them to, even though these employees who have 
asked the District to do that are paid for 100 percent by local funds.
  Who would take that in this House?
  Well, I am not going to take it. And he does so by redefining the 
District of Columbia to be a Federal agency. And here is the ultimate 
insult.
  Seeing that he has no right to do that, he redefines the District of 
Columbia as a Federal agency for purposes of this bill.
  Well, I am here to tell you that 650,000 people who are number one in 
Federal taxes paid, number one to the Federal Government, $12,000 per 
capita per year and they are not simply going to take that kind of 
treatment from individual Members of Congress.
  You don't redefine us. We have been defined as American citizens, and 
we are going to be treated that way. We are no more a part of the 
Federal Government than North Carolina, where Mr. Meadows is from, is a 
part of the Federal Government.
  One of the favorites is, of course, abortion. A bill to expand the 
Hyde amendment treated us as a part of the Federal Government. There 
has been a 20-week D.C. abortion ban bill.
  Now comes marijuana decriminalization. The House had a hearing on 
D.C.'s marijuana decriminalization law. I objected that there would 
even be a hearing. There should have been no such hearing.
  There had been four prior hearings--and those prior hearings had not 
mentioned, even the two jurisdictions, there were two of them, that had 
made marijuana legal, and there are about 18 that are decriminalized.
  The only hearing that was held was held on the decriminalization of 
the District of Colombia.
  Who will take that in this House?
  Well, I asked to testify, and to the credit of Mr. Mica, the chairman 
of the subcommittee, I was given the right to testify.
  When the 20-week abortion bill relating only to the District of 
Columbia was introduced, I was denied even the right to testify.
  Well, I am going to find some place to testify, even if it is on the 
floor of the House of Representatives because you are not going to 
treat the 650,000 Americans I represent as second-class citizens. You 
are not going to do it without protest from their Member.

[[Page 10089]]

  A Member, Representative John Fleming of Louisiana, was permitted to 
sit in on the D.C. marijuana decriminalization hearing. He is not even 
a member of the committee. It is all right with me. But the first thing 
he did afterward was to violate his 10th amendment principles.
  He went out and said, well, I know what I am going to do. I am going 
to try to keep this D.C. marijuana bill from becoming law. And then 
when we called him out on it, and the press went to him, he said, well, 
wait a minute. I haven't said I was going to really do it. I am really 
waiting to see whether I should do it.

                              {time}  1445

  Well, I am waiting too, Representative Fleming, because you said you 
were going to do it because you could do it because you think you have 
the jurisdiction to do it.
  Well, you don't. Technically, of course, Congress can reach into the 
Home Rule Act and violate the Home Rule Act. You can do that, but who 
would say that was in keeping with your own 10th Amendment principles, 
your own principles of small government, your own principles that all 
that matters is local government, your own principles that the Federal 
Government shouldn't even be in what the Federal Government is doing?
  This is a controversial subject, but that is what we have local 
jurisdictions and States for, to respect our differences. We are a 
Union of States, and we are not all the same. At least 18 States also 
have marijuana decriminalization laws.
  Representative Fleming should not be interfering with a jurisdiction 
1,000 miles from his own. He has introduced only 11 bills in this 
Congress. I have introduced 57, and none of them have interfered with 
anybody else's business, and I am not going to take it when you come 
here to interfere with mine.
  This is interesting. At the hearing, there was open disagreement 
among Republican Members in Congress because there are Republican 
libertarians in this Congress. Sometimes, they don't abide by their 
principles, but they are more likely to do so.
  He was called out by the Member who has since introduced the 
amendment to the FY 2015 Commerce-Justice-Science Appropriations bill 
that passed this House, that keeps the Federal Government from 
interfering with medical marijuana laws that have been sanctioned by 
the local jurisdiction. Guess what? That passed this House with 49 
Republicans voting for it.
  I want to say here how much I respect my Republican colleagues who 
try to put their principles into effect when they see such legislation, 
national or local; and I ask you to put yourself in my position.
  Should I sit still when you treat the people I represent as if you 
could toy with them, use them for messaging, forget that they are 
number one in Federal income taxes paid to support the government of 
the United States?
  I don't even have the same vote you have on this floor, and no 
Senators do I have. I have only myself and my will and my determination 
to call every one of you out, not only on this floor, but to every 
newspaper in your district, every newspaper in your State, all of those 
who sent you to Congress because you said you were for small government 
and local control. Well, if you are for it, I am going to hold you to 
it.
  I don't know what is going to happen with the D.C. marijuana 
decriminalization bill. I do know this: that I don't expect the 
District law, which is here now on a so-called layover--what an insult 
that is. We have to bring our local laws here and let them lie here and 
if it is a criminal law, for 60 days, to see if anybody wants to jump 
up and overturn our local laws.
  I don't think that is going to happen because I don't think there are 
that many hypocrites in the Congress of the United States.
  There was a bill--and I am not going to call out this Member's name 
because it was never introduced, but it was passed around for 
cosponsors. It was a bill that reached into something--I don't even 
think it was ideological--it was just meddling--that would keep the 
District of Columbia from using automated traffic enforcement systems.
  You know, they are the kind of systems we have in 521 jurisdictions, 
24 States, and I don't know if this Member or his staff had gotten a 
ticket. He didn't say so. All I know is: What in the world are you 
doing interfering with how we keep people from being struck by cars? 
Maybe we shouldn't have those in some States. We have them in the 
District.
  The Member did not introduce it, so I am not going to call his name 
on this floor. I can only thank him for thinking about this bill, and I 
have come to ask for Members to think very carefully as to what they 
would do if they were in my place.
  You have been sent to the House of Representatives to represent your 
constituents. You have been sent to protect them, as well as to enable 
them to have whatever other people in our country have.
  Suppose your constituents were number one in Federal taxes paid to 
the government of the United States. Is there one of you anywhere who 
would not do as I am doing this afternoon and insist that the people 
you represent be treated as the fullblooded American citizens that they 
are?
  That is what we are. We intend to be treated that way, and we will 
never be quiet about it.
  I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________