RECOGNIZING THE DC 41

______

HON. ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON
of the District of Columbia
in the house of representatives

Friday, April 15, 2011

Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask the House of Representatives to join me in recognizing the 41 District of Columbia elected officials and residents who stood up for the self-governing rights of the American citizens who reside in the nation’s capital by sitting down in a peaceful act of civil disobedience on Constitution Avenue in front of the Dirksen Senate Office Building on Monday, April 15, 2011. The rally, organized by DC Vote, protested the final 2011 continuing resolution (CR) which contains two anti-home-rule riders. The CR prohibits the District from spending its local taxpayer-raised funds on abortions for low-income women, even though many state and local jurisdictions have done so for decades. Without consultation with any District of Columbia elected official, the CR also mandates a D.C.-only private school voucher program, while the House Republican majority refuses to bring a bill to the floor that would allow districts that desire this alternative to select it on a home-rule basis. The District of Columbia is almost alone in the nation in establishing a robust alternative to our local public schools, our public charter schools, which educate almost 40 percent of the city’s children and have long waiting lists. The House voted to approve these riders while denying voting representation in this body to District of Columbia residents.

The D.C. elected officials who engaged in civil disobedience were D.C. Mayor Vincent Gray, Council Chair Kwame Brown, At-Large Council members Sekou Biddle and Michael Brown, Council members Yvette Alexander, Muriel Bowser, and Thomas Wells, and House Shadow Representative Michael Panetta. The District residents were Ann Aldrich, Lafayette Barnes, Peter Bishop, Robert Brannum, Jason Cross, Billie Day, Jack Evans, Marc Ferrara, Corryn Freeman, Mary Gosselink, Lawrence Hams, Karen Hixson, Anise Jenkins, Eugene Kinlow, John Klenert, Rachel Madelham, Adam Maier, George Marion, Jr., Nicholas McCoy, Martin Moulton, Brian Pate, Joseph Perta, Jeffrey Richardson, Deangelo Scott, Deborah Shore, Carly Skidmore, Daniel Solomon, Bruce Spiva, Jay Tamboli, Maceo Thomas, Ryan Velasco, Patricia Vrandenburg, and Ilir Zherka.

The city has long advocated its rights through the usual channels and official responses. However, from the day the 112th Congress convened, the House Republican majority has repeatedly introduced bills to violate the rights of our citizens, beginning with the approval of new
rules that summarily stripped the District of the only vote on the House floor it has achieved, the House Committee of the Whole vote, approved by the federal courts.

The DC 41, as they are called, recognized that the House Republican majority intends to return with more anti-home-rule riders. An additional anti-home-rule rider was included in the original Republican spending bill, H.R. 1, but failed this time to become a part of the final agreement. The message of the DC 41 was that DC elected officials and residents will not walk away from the infringement of their rights to govern themselves and to spend their taxpayer-raised local funds as
they choose.

I ask the House to join me in saluting the DC 41, who acted in the long American tradition of incurring arrests during peaceful civil disobedience to protect and to further their right to full equality with the residents of the 50 states.

First, there was a blog post a few months back by the Washington Post’s Mike DeBonis about the new plates from Maryland commemorating the War of 1812. Those plates are functional, but I don’t find them very inspirational. They don’t do much to emphasize Maryland’s role in that war or how our national anthem was penned at Fort McHenry in Baltimore during that conflict. It’s just very “meh” in my opinion, and a wasted opportunity for the state to educate and inform others about that historic event.

Then, a few weeks ago, I saw a posting on the Washington CityPaper’s blog about someone on Capitol Hill who had a license plate cover that said “DC’s Not A State….Get Over It!“. I was shocked someone who lives and pays taxes in the District had that opinion, and was so vocal about sharing it. Granted it’s everyone’s right to have an opinion and voice it, but I didn’t really care for that particular expression.

Of course, here in the District we have our own “Taxation Without Representation” plates, but they are about 10 years old at at this point, and I think they’ve lost their effectiveness. More importantly, they are out of line with what we really deserve – full statehood.

Then I saw a Delaware plate, with the motto, “The First State“, based on the fact they were the first to ratify the U.S. Constitution.

That got me thinking….why don’t we have DC Statehood Plates?? So I took sometime to mock one up, what do you think?

How hard would this be to roll out? Let’s make it happen. This is the kind of bold move we need, and it would generate a lot of attention for the cause.

If you want to help me push this forward, or have other ideas, please email me or comment below.

This is the legislation I had written about last week that would give the District some expanded sense of home-rule – which of course I support. I still maintain that these steps forward are always at risk of being overturned by a Congress that isn’t as friendly to DC as the current one. Only statehood solves that problem permanently.

Here’s the full text of the bill and the PDF is here.

HR 5968 IH
111th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. R. 5968

To establish the charter for the government of the District of Columbia.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

July 29, 2010

Ms. NORTON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and in addition to the Committee on Ways and Means, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned

A BILL

To establish the charter for the government of the District of Columbia.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may cited as the `District of Columbia Full Self-Government Act’.

TITLE I–STATUS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

SEC. 101. STATUS OF THE DISTRICT.

(a) In General- All of the territory constituting the permanent seat of the Government of the United States shall continue to be designated as the District of Columbia. The District of Columbia shall remain and continue a body corporate, as provided in section 2 of the Revised Statutes relating to the District (sec. 1-102, D.C. Official Code).

(b) No Effect on Existing Laws- No law or regulation which is in force on the effective date of this Act shall be deemed amended or repealed by this Act except to the extent specifically provided herein or to the extent that such law or regulation is inconsistent with this Act, but any such law or regulation may be amended or repealed by act or resolution as authorized in this Act, or by Act of Congress.

(c) No Effect on Boundary Line- Nothing contained in this section shall affect the boundary line between the District of Columbia and the Commonwealth of Virginia as the same was established or may be subsequently established under the provisions of title I of the Act of October 31, 1945 (59 Stat. 552).

SEC. 102. LEGISLATIVE POWER OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

Except as provided in section 202, the legislative power of the District of Columbia shall extend to all rightful subjects of legislation within the District consistent with the Constitution of the United States and the provisions of this Act subject to all the restrictions and limitations imposed upon the States by the tenth section of the first article of the Constitution of the United States.

TITLE II–LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

SEC. 201. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE COUNCIL.

(a) Establishment- There is established a Council of the District of Columbia (hereafter in this Act referred to as the `Council’), and the members of the Council shall be elected by the registered qualified electors of the District.

(b) Powers, Organization, and Procedure- The powers, organization, and procedure of the Council shall be set forth under such laws as may be enacted by the District of Columbia consistent with the provisions of this Act.

SEC. 202. LIMITATIONS ON AUTHORITY.

The Council shall have no authority to pass any act contrary to the provisions of this Act except as specifically provided in this Act, or to–

(1) impose any tax on property of the United States or any of the several States;

(2) lend the public credit for support of any private undertaking;

(3) enact any act, or enact any act to amend or repeal any Act of Congress, which concerns the functions or property of the United States or which is not restricted in its application exclusively in or to the District of Columbia;

(4) enact any act, resolution, or rule with respect to any provision of title 11 of the District of Columbia Official Code (relating to organization and jurisdiction of the District of Columbia courts);

(5) impose any tax on the whole or any portion of the personal income, either directly or at the source thereof, of any individual not a resident of the District (the terms `individual’ and `resident’ in this paragraph to have the meaning given such terms in section 47-1801.04, D.C. Official Code);

(6) enact any act, resolution, or rule which permits the building of any structure within the District of Columbia in excess of the height limitations contained in section 5 of the Act of June 1, 1910 (sec. 5-405, D.C. Official Code), and in effect on the effective date of this Act;

(7) enact any act, resolution, or regulation with respect to the Commission of Mental Health;

(8) enact any act or regulation relating to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia or any other court of the United States in the District other than the District courts, or relating to the duties or powers of the United States attorney or the United States Marshal for the District of Columbia; or

(9) enact any act, resolution, or rule with respect to the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority established under section 101(a) of the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Act of 1995.

TITLE III–EXECUTIVE BRANCH

SEC. 301. OFFICE OF THE MAYOR.

(a) Establishment- There is established the Office of the Mayor of the District of Columbia, and the Mayor shall be elected by the registered qualified electors of the District.

(b) Powers and Duties- The powers and duties of the Mayor of the District of Columbia, and the organization of the Office of the Mayor of the District of Columbia, shall be set forth under such laws as may be enacted by the District of Columbia consistent with the provisions of this Act.

SEC. 302. TREATMENT OF EMPLOYEES FORMERLY COVERED BY FEDERAL CIVIL SERVICE SYSTEM.

In the case of persons employed by the District government immediately preceding the effective date of the personnel system established by the District government pursuant to section 422(3) of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act, the personnel system of the District government may provide for continued participation in all or part of the Federal Civil Service System and shall provide for benefits, including but not limited to pay, tenure, leave, residence, retirement, health and life insurance, and employee disability and death benefits, all at least equal to those provided by legislation enacted by Congress, or regulation adopted pursuant thereto, and applicable to such officers and employees immediately prior to such date, except that nothing in this Act shall prohibit the District from separating an officer or employee subject to such system in the implementation of a financial plan and budget for the District government approved under subtitle A of title II of the District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Act of 1995.

SEC. 303. RESTRICTIONS ON CERTAIN MUNICIPAL PLANNING ACTIVITIES.

The Mayor’s planning responsibility shall not extend to Federal and international projects and developments in the District, as determined by the National Capital Planning Commission, or to the United States Capitol buildings and grounds as defined in chapter 51 of title 40, United States Code, or to any extension thereof or addition thereto, or to buildings and grounds under the care of the Architect of the Capitol.

SEC. 304. EMERGENCY CONTROL OF METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT.

(a) Authority of President To Exercise Control in Emergencies-

(1) AUTHORITY- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, whenever the President of the United States determines that special conditions of an emergency nature exist which require the use of the Metropolitan Police force for Federal purposes, he may direct the Mayor to provide him, and the Mayor shall provide, such services of the Metropolitan Police force as the President may deem necessary and appropriate.

(2) LIMITATION OF DURATION OF AUTHORITY- In no case shall services made available pursuant to any direction of the President under this subsection extend–

(A) for a period in excess of 48 hours unless the President has, prior to the expiration of such period, notified the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform of the House of Representatives and the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate, in writing, as to the reason for such direction and the period of time during which the need for such services is likely to continue; or

(B) for any period in excess of 30 days, unless the Senate and the House of Representatives enact into law a joint resolution authorizing such an extension.

(b) Termination-

(1) IN GENERAL- Subject to paragraph (2), the services made available in accordance with subsection (a) shall terminate upon the end of such emergency, the expiration of a period of 30 days following the date on which such services are first made available, or the enactment into law of a joint resolution by the Congress providing for such termination, whichever first occurs.

(2) SPECIAL RULE IN CASE OF ADJOURNMENT OF CONGRESS SINE DIE- Notwithstanding paragraph (1), in any case in which services are made available in accordance with subsection (a) during any period of an adjournment of the Congress sine die, such services shall terminate upon the end of the emergency, the expiration of the 30-day period following the date on which Congress first convenes following such adjournment, or the enactment into law of a joint resolution by the Congress providing for such termination, whichever first occurs.

TITLE IV–JUDICIAL BRANCH

SEC. 401. JUDICIAL BRANCH.

The judicial powers of the District of Columbia, and the provisions of the charter of the District of Columbia government which are applicable to the judges and courts of the District of Columbia, shall be those set forth in part C of title IV of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act (sec. 1-204.31 et seq., D.C. Official Code), as in effect on the effective date of this Act.

TITLE V–BUDGET AND FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT

SEC. 501. APPLICATION OF LAWS ESTABLISHED BY DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

(a) Budget and Financial Management- Subject to this Act, the process by which the District of Columbia develops and enacts the budget for the District government for a fiscal year, and the activities carried out with respect to the financial management of the District government for a fiscal year, shall be established under such laws as may be enacted by the District.

(b) Borrowing- Subject to this Act, the process and rules by which the District of Columbia issues bonds or otherwise borrows money shall be established under such laws as may be enacted by the District.

SEC. 502. FULL FAITH AND CREDIT OF UNITED STATES NOT PLEDGED.

The full faith and credit of the United States is not pledged for the payment of any principal of or interest on any bond, note, or other obligation issued by the District of Columbia, and the United States is not responsible or liable for the payment of any principal of or interest on any bond, note, or other obligation issued by the District.

SEC. 503. FEDERAL TAX EXEMPTION.

Bonds and notes issued by the District of Columbia and the interest thereon shall be exempt from all Federal taxation except estate, inheritance, and gift taxes.

SEC. 504. LEGAL INVESTMENT IN BONDS AND NOTES ISSUED BY DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

Notwithstanding any restriction on the investment of funds by fiduciaries contained in any other law, all domestic insurance companies, domestic insurance associations, executors, administrators, guardians, trustees, and other fiduciaries within the District of Columbia may legally invest any sinking funds, moneys, trust funds, or other funds belonging to them or under or within their control in any bonds issued by the District of Columbia. National banking associations are authorized to deal in, underwrite, purchase and sell, for their own accounts or for the accounts of customers, bonds and notes issued by the District to the same extent as national banking associations are authorized by paragraph seven of section 5136 of the Revised Statutes (12 U.S.C. 24), to deal in, underwrite, purchase and sell obligations of the United States, States, or political subdivision thereof. All Federal building and loan associations and Federal savings and loan associations, and banks, trust companies, building and loan associations, and savings and loan associations, domiciled in the District may purchase, sell, underwrite, and deal in, for their own account or for the account of others, all bonds or notes issued by the District of Columbia. Nothing contained in this section shall be construed as relieving any person, firm, association, or corporation from any duty of exercising due and reasonable care in selecting securities for purchase or investment.

TITLE VI–RETENTION OF FEDERAL AUTHORITIES

SEC. 601. RETENTION OF CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY.

Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, Congress reserves the right, at any time, to exercise its constitutional authority as legislature for the District of Columbia, by enacting legislation for the District on any subject, whether within or without the scope of legislative power granted to the Council by this Act, including legislation to amend or repeal any law in force in the District prior to or after the effective date of this Act and any act passed by the Council.

SEC. 602. LIMITATION ON AUTHORITY OF DISTRICT OVER CERTAIN AGENCIES.

Nothing in this Act shall be construed as vesting in the District of Columbia government any greater authority over the National Zoological Park, the National Guard of the District of Columbia, the Washington Aqueduct, the National Capital Planning Commission, or over any Federal agency, than was vested in the Commissioner of the District of Columbia established under Reorganization Plan Numbered 3 of 1967 prior to January 2, 1975.

TITLE VII–TERMINATION OF EXISTING CHARTER; TRANSITION

SEC. 701. TERMINATION OF EXISTING CHARTER.

(a) In General- Except as provided in section 401 and subsection (b), the District of Columbia Home Rule Act (sec. 1-201.01 et seq., D.C. Official Code) is repealed.

(b) No Effect on Amendatory Provisions- Nothing in subsection (a) shall be construed to affect any provision of law which is amended or repealed by the District of Columbia Home Rule Act.

SEC. 702. NO EFFECT ON EXISTING OBLIGATIONS.

(a) Budgets- Nothing in this Act or in the amendment made by section 701 may be construed to relieve the District of Columbia of any contractual or other financial obligations incurred by the District under a budget enacted for a fiscal year prior to the effective date of this Act.

(b) Borrowing- Nothing in this Act or in the amendment made by section 701 may be construed–

(1) to relieve the District of Columbia of any obligation incurred with respect to bonds or other forms of borrowing issued prior to the effective date of this Act; or

(2) to waive the application to the District of Columbia of any other Federal law governing the borrowing of funds by States or units of local government, including the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.

SEC. 703. NO EFFECT ON INDIVIDUALS HOLDING POSITIONS WITHIN DISTRICT GOVERNMENT.

Nothing in this Act or in the amendment made by section 701 may be construed to affect the status of any individual who holds elective or appointed office in, or is an officer or employee of, the government of the District of Columbia as of the effective date of this Act.

SEC. 704. NO EFFECT ON PENDING ACTIONS OR PROCEEDINGS.

No suit, action, or other judicial proceeding lawfully commenced by or against any officer or agency in his or its official capacity or in relation to the exercise of his or its official functions, and no administrative action or proceeding lawfully commenced, shall abate by reason of this Act or the amendment made by section 701.

TITLE VIII–EFFECTIVE DATE

SEC. 801. EFFECTIVE DATE.

This Act and the amendments made by this Act shall take effect on the effective date of legislation enacted by the District of Columbia after the date of the enactment of this Act which establishes–

(1) the powers, organization, and procedure of the Council of the District of Columbia; and

(2) the powers and duties of the Mayor of the District of Columbia, and the organization of the Office of the Mayor of the District of Columbia.

END

One would think that with Democrats in charge of both houses of Congress, there would be less meddling in the local affairs of the District, but that’s not the case.

Recently Senator Tester of Montana and Congressman Travis Childers of Montana introduced legislation that would completely eliminate any locally-enacted regulation of firearms or ammunition in Washington. That’s right – anybody would be free to walk around with a semi-automatic rifle in DC. Talk about a threat to national security!

It’s a slap in the face to local governments everywhere, and was only done to gain cheap political points with the National Rifle Association. It’s clear Tester and Childers don’t give a rip about the people of DC, or the countless families who have lost loved ones to gun violence.

We’ve had enough of Congressional meddling with DC, and now we’re fighting back. My PAC, the Free and Equal DC Fund, will be running radio ads in Montana and Mississippi starting this week. We’ll be letting Tester’s and Childers’ constituents know that they don’t have full-time representatives in DC…and that maybe their Senator or Representative should be a DC City Councilmember instead.

You can see a sample of the ad below:

Please make a donation to keep them on the air at:
http://www.actblue.com/page/montanaradio

In case you haven’t heard, the DC Voting Rights bill was pulled today by Delegate Norton. There was talk last week of a compromise on the gun amendment issue, but it looks like the NRA wanted too much from the District when it came to giving up local gun control legislation. I’m glad she did pull it, as it looks like the deal was getting worse all the time. I do wish that her office had floated a trial balloon privately with other District elected officials before announcing the she was agreeing to the gun amendment, as the past few days of division with the voting rights community didn’t do anyone any favors.

Here’s the statement from Delegate Norton’s office:

New Developments Force Delay on Voting Rights Bill, but Norton Already at Work on New Strategies

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) today, in light of new developments that are just emerging in both the House and Senate, has asked House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-MD) to remove the D.C. voting rights bill from the floor schedule for now. Congresswoman Norton’s statement follows:

“After working for a full year to bring a clean D.C. voting rights bill to the House floor, while continuing to negotiate a gun compromise, I made the most difficult decision last week to begin moving forward with the D.C. voting rights bill. It appeared that despite a gun amendment, our best chance to pass D.C. voting rights was this year because the 60 Senate votes resulting from our pairing with Utah disappears after the 2010 census becomes effective, and large majorities in the House and Senate cannot be assured in the current political climate. However, new developments in both the House and Senate have now made it difficult to pass the D.C. House Voting Rights Act right now.

“First, concerning developments in the House, over the weekend, the Democratic House leadership and I were shocked and blindsided to receive an updated NRA-drafted House gun bill, which would have been significantly more harmful to the city than the Senate (Ensign) gun bill. I cannot agree to these egregious changes, not only because they make the already bad gun attachment to the D.C. voting rights bill even worse than I thought was possible, but also because the new sections will surely bring down the support we have had of anti-gun Democratic Senators. Senate Democratic support was already in doubt because some Democrats had said they would not vote for the final bill if it contained the Ensign gun amendment. I had hoped that some changes I requested in the Senate gun amendment would hold their support, but three outrageous provisions in the updated NRA-drafted House gun bill virtually guarantee the loss of some Senate Democratic support, and therefore of the D.C. voting rights bill.

“The existing Senate gun bill eliminated important gun safety laws in the District, but the changes in the House gun bill would directly proliferate guns throughout the District. First, the District would be barred from prohibiting or even unduly burdening the carrying of firearms by persons, either concealed or openly, in public, an unthinkable provision for both hometown D.C. and official Washington. Second, the bill would permit the District of Columbia police chief to issue concealed carry licenses and severely limited the chief’s discretion to refuse to do so. To make matters even worse, I also learned yesterday that we will have difficulty defeating a potential Republican motion to recommit, using their right to offer one amendment on, the gun bill. We believe that such an amendment would allow persons to carry firearms, either concealed or openly, without permits, taking away even the police chief’s limited discretion to deny such permits. Consequently, a person in the District would be able to walk on the streets carrying an assault weapon slung over her shoulder or with concealed weapons. Third, the District of Columbia would not be able to prohibit guns in city-controlled buildings or structures, unless they had certain security measures to identify and exclude unauthorized or hazardous persons or articles, such as guard posts, metal detectors, or card-based or biometric access devices. Under this provision, for example, D.C. might not be able to ban guns at public and charter schools, recreation centers, and many other public buildings that do not have such security measures. Fourth, residential or commercial building owners in the District would not be able to prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms by tenants. Considering that almost all of the commercial space in the District of Columbia is leased and that most residential housing here is leased, almost every commercial office building, as well as all rental housing units, could be filled with persons possessing guns. These provisions are so over the top, they are unworthy of serious consideration.

“Concerning developments in the Senate, even if we had not faced this new, unexpected NRA-drafted House gun bill, we were surprised last week by the vocal and strident opposition of Senator Orrin Hatch (R-UT) to the House version of the D.C. voting rights bill, and today’s statement by Susan Collins joining in opposition (R-ME). I admire and have worked closely for many years with Senator Hatch on many issues, including the D.C. voting rights bill. Senator Hatch has argued forcefully and with great principle that Constitution permits Congress to grant the District a House seat. We have always known that Senator Hatch opposed Utah’s temporary additional fourth being elected at-large, as opposed to redistricting, but we had hoped to be able to reconcile the House and Senate bills, as well as to encourage Republican Senators to support the D.C. House voting rights bill on principle. However, we did not anticipate Senator Hatch’s harsh opposition to the House bill on at-large grounds, nor did we expect him to ‘filibuster and vote against this bill, and…urge…Senate colleagues to do so as well.’ Senator Hatch’s filibuster of the bill almost surely will have the support of his Republican colleagues, leaving us without 60 votes.

“With the invaluable and indispensible leadership of DC Vote, the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, and coalition of legions of allies I have fought a fight that is part of my DNA as a third-generation Washingtonian, whose great grandfather settled here as a runaway slave from Virginia. Our city cannot give up now, and we are fortunate to have the continuing strong support of our Democratic leadership. We have begun to develop new strategies to get a voting rights bill through the Congress that can pass, but I will have public meetings before bringing forward new approaches to achieve voting rights. We have developed a strategy for advancing budget and legislative autonomy this year.

“As I said last week, gun forces have the votes to take out our gun laws on another bill, and be assured that they will try to do so. I have successfully fought them off four times in the past until they came upon the voting rights bill. I will return to the trenches where I have always fought for my hometown to do all I can to turn back these aggressors. At the same time, I am full of promising ideas about how to move forward not only on voting rights but on every right D.C. residents are entitled to as American citizens. I ask only that my constituents work with me to achieve these goals.”

Representative Browne was a tireless activist on behalf of winning congressional representation for the District, and his work for the city he loved will not be forgotten. Through his efforts, Representative Browne was able to secure resolutions in support of District representation from dozens of cities and states across the country – and by doing so educated thousands of elected officials about DC’s unique status. Much of the progress we’ve made on obtaining a vote in the House for the District can be directly tied back to his efforts.

While collecting signatures for my ballot petition in 2006, many people were sad to hear that Ray wasn’t running for reelection. They also reminded me that I would have big shoes to fill if I were to win the election. It seemed everywhere I went, people in every ward across the city had wonderful things to say about Representative Browne, and his work. The District is a better place because of his service.

Representative Browne was a mentor to me as I began my own tenure as DC’s Shadow Representative, and was always very generous with his time and advice. I’ve been proud to build upon the work he started, and I will continue to do so.

Representative Brown’s passing should remind all of us that no matter what challenges we face, we must not stop fighting until the District stands free and equal with the other states in our union.

I have three questions for you:

1) Are you still looking for the perfect holiday gift?
2) Do you like snarky T-shirts?
3) Do you want to support the DC Statehood Fund?

If the the answer was “yes” to any of the above, then look no further as the t-shirts below are perfect for anyone who needs to play Santa. I can’t guarantee we’ll get Congressional representation in our stockings this year, but I can promise a few chuckles from these shirts:

Give the gift that shows how much you love Senators from Nevada re-writing our local gun laws, or buy one for yourself to show everyone at the coffee shop that you call your “office” that you are demanding to be represented in Congress with some real votes – and have the t-shirt to prove it.

Proceeds from the sales go to the District of Columbia Statehood Fund.

“We will never make up for the HIV/AIDS epidemic that has besieged this city because needle exchange was banned for a decade, or make up for the resulting loss of lives. There is no way to make poor women, forced to carry pregnancies to term, believe that their reproductive choice was guaranteed in the decades during the longest of the bans, on using local funds for abortions for poor women. But, today we start a new chapter in democracy in the District of Columbia with the first D.C. appropriations in memory free of all un-democratic, anti-home rule riders.”

Laura Evans from Fox 5 did a good overview last night as well:

Directly from the Senate Appropriation Committee’s web site:

Removing Special Restrictions on the District of Columbia: Eliminates a prohibition on the use of local tax funds for abortion, thereby putting the District in the same position as the 50 states. Also allows the District to implement a referendum on use of marijuana for medical purposes as has been done in other states, allows use of Federal funds for needle exchange programs except in locations considered inappropriate by District authorities, and discontinues a ban on the use of funds in the bill for domestic partnership registration and benefits.

This is good news, but it will better news when the District has full budgetary and legislative autonomy, like every other city and state in the country.