National Capital Security and Safety Act

Floor Speech

NATIONAL CAPITAL SECURITY AND SAFETY ACT -- (House of Representatives - September 16, 2008)

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman and thank him for his leadership, and I rise in strong support of the bill and strong opposition to the amendment that will be offered.

Ladies and gentlemen, put this bill in context. I am not sure whether there were 435 of us, I don't know the total vote, but let's say 430. 430 of us this night, this night, voted either to give the States the option to opt out of one of the most important issues confronting us, and that is using American resources for our energy needs, or the other half voted to let the States opt in. So hear me. Everybody on this House floor voted to allow the States either to opt in or to opt out. Pick your bill. But the premise was the same, that States had the authority to act themselves.

The amendment to be offered rejects that and imposes, not on Detroit that the gentleman mentioned, there is no legislation on the floor about Detroit, Michigan. There is no legislation on this floor about Indianapolis, Indiana. I don't know what their gun law is. And, very frankly, there is none about Hartford, Connecticut, or Baltimore, Maryland. But the District of Columbia comes here, unfortunately defenseless, from the perspective of some on this floor. Their defense is us.

But let me speak to this. 220 years before this Capitol had been imagined and when this city was a swamp, our Founders were asking a question we still hear echoed in the District to this day: How could they establish a Federal city, cut it out from its home State and put it under the rule of Congress without violating the principles they had just fought a war to secure? That was their question. Government comes from the consent of the governed. That is a principle we hold dear, asterisk, except for the 600,000 people who happen to live in Washington, D.C.

In the 43rd Federalist Paper published in 1788, James Madison answered the question that was posed, that our authority over the District would be legitimate only if some basic guarantees were in place. The Government, and I quote, ``will no doubt provide for the rights and the consent of the citizens inhabiting it.''

In other words, James Madison thought we would surely secure the rights of the citizens of the District of Columbia. And when we refer to the citizens of the District of Columbia, let us, my friends, be more expansive: Citizens of America who happen to live in the District of Columbia, and, but for Maryland's generosity, would live in Maryland. They are citizens of America who happen to live in the District of Columbia. But should they be disenfranchised because they happen to live in this square that we call the District of Columbia?

He went on to say, and ``a municipal legislature for local purposes derived from their own suffrages, will of course be allowed them.'' That is the options to make their policy.

Now, listen to the confidence with which Madison wrote. His words suggested that ``no doubt,'' ``no doubt,'' Madison said, that surely the Congress of the United States and the Founding Fathers who had expressed the rights of our citizens would respect those rights, wherever those citizens might reside. And that ``of course'' they will be citizens, not subjects, unlike apparently those in Indianapolis or in other cities.

I think his confidence would be shaken if he could hear this debate, if he could see what a congressionally imposed gun policy would do to the District's right to govern itself.

We can argue back and forth the gun policy. What we cannot argue back and forth is that the District of Columbia citizens have the right and should have that right to govern themselves. That is the principle that is at stake here.

I will leave the argument over gun rights and gun control to other Members. We have a gun law in Maryland. It works well. I don't get any complaints about it. If I did, I would have to address it. I wouldn't expect you to address it, unless you wanted to pass a Federal statute. This is not a Federal statute. This is a statute for one area.

Whatever conclusion this House comes to, we are really confronted with a much more fundamental question, as I said: Do we impose that decision on those who have had no say in it, or do we pass the Norton bill as introduced, which I am in favor of, and require the people of the District of Columbia to comply with the Supreme Court's decision through local legislation, as all of us have to do? No more, no less.

The people of Maryland need to comply with the Constitution, as do the people of the District of Columbia. But you don't interpose your judgment. In fact, somebody repairs to the courts and the courts decide. The courts decided in this case, and the District of Columbia is moving to comply with the Court's decision.

You may disagree with their compliance, and indeed somebody may take it to court and the court will say, no, District of Columbia, you didn't do it right. That happens to us all. But we should not interpose our own judgment. Madison believed that would not be consistent with our principles.

If Congress imposes a gun policy on the people of D.C., are we meeting any of those conditions? Are we providing for their rights and consent? No. They do not have the right to consent to anything that goes on here.

Do they have a ``voice in the election of the government which is to exercise authority over them''? Well, yes, in a way they do. They elect Ms. Norton. We don't give her a vote. That is wrong. They elect their council. They elect their mayor. But, oh, by the way, if we don't like your policies, we will overturn them. Not because a court has found them to be unconstitutional, but because we interpose our judgment. Madison would have thought that was wrong.

Where is their equal vote in this Congress? Are they allowed a ``municipal legislature for local purposes''? Well, yes, sort of, but subject to our interposing our own judgment for theirs. We are not elected to be local city council persons. Well, the City Council still meets. But on this supremely local and sensitive issue, we are preparing to silence it.

The principle of federalism, which so many of my colleagues profess, say that local problems are best tackled locally. That is why I suggest 435 of us, there weren't 435 that voted, but unanimously voted, either to allow individual States to opt out of an important policy, or to opt in to an important policy. But we gave those States that right. Both sides gave it to them. Every one of us voted for that option, and we turn around and say, oh, but we are not going to give that option to the District of Columbia.

The closer you get to the problem, the more direct knowledge and direct accountability you find. While we in Congress may be close physically, we are still a world away from the gun violence the D.C. Council is struggling to confront, all the while upholding the Court's decision.

They know they have to do that. They know the Court will oversee it. Let the law operate as it was intended to do, and if they do not comply with the Supreme Court decision, the Court will say so.

I ask my colleagues candidly, who is better equipped to make these difficult decisions, Congress or the people of this community? The people of our communities believe that they are best qualified to make their local decisions.

I don't know how you can call yourself a Federalist and answer Congress. A conservative columnist put it well a few years ago. ``You can't favor federalism for only ideas you like.''

Federalism is about allowing local and State governments to make decisions you don't like. So the ultimate issue here is not guns, it is a question of who here is prepared to be consistent in their principles, and of who here is prepared to respect the District's right of self-government, as was referred to by James Madison, which he said, the founders, which I am saying, the founders, took for granted.

I urge my colleagues to support this base bill. Whatever position you have on guns, this is an issue of federalism and principle and local option, local government.

You voted that way for the States on energy. Vote that way for the citizens of the District of Columbia.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source