Norton Releases Prepared Remarks for Press Conference with Bowser, Mendelson to Defend D.C.’s Death with Dignity Act Ahead of Disapproval Resolution Markup

WASHINGTON, D.C.—The office of Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) released her statement ahead of a press conference today with District of Columbia Mayor Muriel Bowser and D.C. Council Chairman Phil Mendelson to defend D.C.'s medical aid-in-dying bill, the Death with Dignity Act, from congressional interference. The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee will hold a markup of a disapproval resolution to nullify the Death with Dignity Act on Thursday, February 2, 2017, at 1:00 p.m., in 2154 Rayburn House Office Building.

Norton's full remarks, as prepared for delivery, follow.

STATEMENT FOR DEATH WITH DIGNITY ACT PRESS CONFERENCE

Tuesday, January 31, 2017

I thank Mayor Muriel Bowser and Council Chairman Phil Mendelson for coming to Congress to explain and defend D.C.'s duly enacted "Death with Dignity Act," the District's medical aid-in-dying bill. It is perhaps a fitting title for today as we demand dignity for the democratic rights of D.C. residents, who simply want their laws to be respected and to be left alone by Members of Congress.

On Thursday afternoon, the Oversight and Government Reform Committee will meet to mark up a disapproval resolution to nullify D.C.'s Death with Dignity Act. Members of Congress from other jurisdictions in the United States, who are totally unaccountable to D.C. residents (I am the only one accountable to D.C. residents), will sit in judgment on a purely local matter. The District's duly-elected mayor Muriel Bowser, and the District's duly-elected Council Chairman, Phil Mendelson, are here today to voice the District's collective opposition to this anti-democratic attack on the District and to speak out for the democratic rights of D.C. residents.

This purely local matter went through a rigorous democratic process that heard debate from both sides of this issue. To its credit, the Council recognized that medical aid in dying presents complex moral, legal, medical and ethical issues. That is why the D.C. Council held an exhaustive hearing on the Death with Dignity Act to examine these issues, where 69 experts and dozens of concerned citizens testified, both for and against the legislation. After hearing debate, the elected D.C. Council passed the Death with Dignity Act by a vote of 11-2, and the elected D.C. Mayor signed it. That should have ended the matter, as it would in any other jurisdiction in the United States.

However, unlike other jurisdictions, the District lacks the status of a state it deserves, despite having paid for it dearly in both blood and treasure to the government of the United States. But the District does operate under the Home Rule Act, which in 1973 gave D.C. the authority to legislate on local matters, with only a few enumerated exceptions, and to "relieve Congress of the burden of legislating upon essentially local District matters." Medical aid in dying is not among the exceptions.

Although I support the District's Death with Dignity Act, which is substantially similar to the laws of the five states that have legalized medical aid in dying by statute and contains strong safeguards that protect against potential abuses of the program, my position on the bill is irrelevant to why we are here today. We will ask Members of Congress to vote with the District on this bill, even if they personally disagree with . The District's right to home rule is superior to any ideological position I or any other Member of Congress may have on a piece of D.C. legislation. That is why at Thursday's markup I will not request that Members take a position on the merits of the Death with Dignity Act, only on the District's democratic right to pass its own laws.

I want to correct a statement by Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz and Heritage Foundation President Jim DeMint, who coauthored an op-ed calling for Congress to intervene and nullify the Death with Dignity Act. They made the false argument that Congress not only has the constitutional authority to regulate D.C.'s local affairs, but that it has the obligation to do so. Congressional authority over the District is a fact, however inconsistent that authority is with democracy and the bedrock American principle of local control. But the Home Rule Act does not obligate Congress to intervene in the District's affairs. The proof, of course, is that Congress uses its plenary jurisdiction over the District only for ideological reasons when it disagrees with legislation. Of course, a Member has not introduced legislation to ban medical aid in dying nationally. The Committee knows such a bill would fail. Public support for medical aid in dying is growing—according to Gallup, 69% of Americans supported it in 2016. It is easier to abuse congressional power over the District than it would be to take the fight nationally.

Ironically, to conclude his op-ed, Chairman Chaffetz wrote that "we will rage for the citizens of the District…." D.C. residents would very much appreciate the Chairman "raging" for their democratic rights, including statehood, voting rights, budget autonomy and legislative autonomy, instead of actively working against laws passed democratically by local authorities.

Mayor Bowser, Chairman Mendelson, and I are in this fight for the long haul. No matter what anti-home-rule attacks House Republicans throw our way, we will always be here standing strongly together to defend the democratic rights of our residents.