[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 163 (2017), Part 14]
[House]
[Page 19619]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       RESPECT THE HOME RULE ACT

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from 
the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) for 5 minutes.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, 44 years ago this month, Congress passed the 
District of Columbia Home Rule Act. A Republican President signed it. A 
Democratic Congress, together with the Republican President, freed the 
Nation's Capital from government by three unelected commissioners.
  The irony is that the self-government the District of Columbia enjoys 
today is a virtual replica of what a Republican Congress and a 
Republican President granted to the District of Columbia right after 
the Civil War. It granted the Home Rule Act and, of course, a Delegate 
to Congress.
  But, with Reconstruction and Democratic control, Democrats took back 
what Republicans had granted and, once again, Democrats denied the 
District of Columbia self-government.
  Then, 44 years ago, with bipartisan support, after 100 years of 
struggle, the District of Columbia finally won what we call home rule.
  My colleagues should respect their own history. It was Richard Nixon 
who signed the Home Rule Act, acting on the most revered, as far as we 
are told, Republican principles of local control, that local residents 
should always have a democratically elected local government controlled 
entirely by their government. The District has become one of the most 
successful jurisdictions in the United States since home rule, with a 
$14 billion budget.
  Before and after home rule however, District of Columbia residents 
have always paid Federal income taxes. Today, D.C. residents rank 
number one--that is first--per capita in taxes paid to support the 
government of the United States.
  In signing the bill for the Home Rule Act, President Nixon wrote: 
``One of the major goals of this administration is to place 
responsibility for local functions under local control and to provide 
local governments with the authority and resources they need to serve 
their communities effectively.''
  Since Congress granted the Home Rule Act, it has shown no interest in 
governing the District of Columbia, but it requires the D.C. budget to 
actually be passed again here, by Congress, for the sole purpose of 
seeking to overturn local laws that Members of Congress don't support.
  The basis for our federation of States is that each has its own laws 
and they must be respected, yet there are eight different laws pending 
here to be overturned by the Congress of the United States.
  I believe I will be able to retain most of these laws for the 
District of Columbia, but why should I have to spend any of my time 
protecting local laws passed by my local jurisdiction?
  They range from trying to get rid of all the District's gun laws; 
making the District pay for private schools out of local funds; the 
medical aid in dying law, which six States already have and DC would 
not be allowed to have, although two Republican leaders have such bills 
in their States; no budget autonomy law; repeal of the 
nondiscrimination law that the District has based on reproductive 
choices of family members; no local funds for marijuana 
commercialization, though that is now done by eight States; and the 
prohibition on spending for abortions for low-income women. That is 
done by 17 States.
  This is a sampling of what is pending, Mr. Speaker. Congress allows 
these same laws to exist in their own local jurisdictions.
  The way to commemorate self-government for the District of Columbia 
granted by Congress 44 years ago is for Congress itself to respect the 
Home Rule Act it passed in 1973.

                          ____________________