Financial Services and General Government Appropriations Act, 2017

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment strikes the repeal of the District of Columbia budget autonomy referendum, which allows D.C. to spend its own local funds, consisting of local taxes and local fees, after a 30-day congressional review period.

Astonishingly, House Republicans appear to be so afraid of a local jurisdiction spending its local funds without the approval of a Federal body, the U.S. Congress, that they will be voting for a second time in a little over a month to repeal the referendum.

D.C.'s budget autonomy referendum is in effect as I speak. The D.C. Council recently passed its first local budget pursuant to the referendum. Therefore, the repeal would be the most significant reduction in the District of Columbia's authority to govern itself since Congress granted the city limited home rule in 1973.

Smart lawyers differed about the validity of the referendum when D.C. enacted it. However, the referendum has been litigated, and there is only one judicial opinion in effect. In March, the D.C. Superior Court upheld the referendum, no appeal was filed, and the court ordered D.C. employees to implement it.

Some House Republicans had either been disguising or simply mistaken in their opposition to the referendum because they are using legalistic arguments. For example, the Speaker revealed a reason that some may oppose the referendum. He said: ``There are real consequences. The D.C. government wants to use revenues to fund abortions in the District. House Republicans will not stand for that.''

Well, the Speaker was wrong about the effect of the budget autonomy referendum. Congress loses nothing under budget autonomy. Congress retains the authority to legislate on any D.C. matter, including its local budgets at any time.

Mr. Chairman, this is not statehood, I am here to tell the floor this evening. The referendum is a modest attempt by a local jurisdiction to get enough control of its local funds to be able to implement its own budget soon after it is passed, like other American jurisdictions, instead of having it caught up into congressional delays that have nothing to do with our local budget.

Indeed, the riders in this bill prohibiting D.C. from spending its local funds on marijuana commercialization and abortion services for low-income women were changed from those in prior appropriations bills to apply whether or not D.C. has budget autonomy. Historically, D.C. riders applied only to funds included in appropriations bills because only appropriations bills authorized D.C. spending. In this bill, the riders apply to any D.C. funds, however authorized, including those in budgets passed pursuant to budget autonomy. The riders Congress places in D.C. appropriations bills will be untouched by budget autonomy.

Local control over local dollars raised by local taxpayers is a principle much-cited by congressional Republicans and is central, if I may say so, to the American people form of government. Beyond this core principle, budget autonomy has practical benefits for the District, including lower borrowing costs, more accurate revenue and expenditure forecasts, improved agency operations, and the removal of the threat of D.C. government shutdowns because the Federal Government shuts down.

D.C.'s budget is bigger than the budgets of 14 States, Mr. Chairman. It raises more than $7 billion in local funds. While D.C. is in a better financial position than most cities and States, with a rainy-day fund of $2.17 billion on a total budget of $13.4 billion, budget autonomy would make the district economy even stronger.

Why would anybody in this House oppose that possibility?

The repeal of the referendum is not only bad policy, it is a blight on this country's most revered principle--local control.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source