Mr. Chairman, I’m disappointed we’ve convened this morning to talk only about guns. There’s so much more we could and should be doing to forge a constructive relationship between Congress and the District. The cynical and selective manipulation of District issues in the service of external political agendas diminishes our legitimate oversight and legislative authority, and is a disservice to the citizens of our nation’s capital.

When I became Chairman of this Committee’s District of Columbia Subcommittee, the city was bankrupt. That crisis was fueled, in no small part, by congressional failure to exercise appropriate oversight in our own backyard. Successive Republican Congresses, working with a Democratic President, helped save the District and put the city on the road to recovery. But on issues ranging from D.C. schools, the child welfare system, multi-million dollar embezzlement from the tax department, failing fire hydrants, and more, the Democratic Congress has had little time for pressing local matters I and others believe the Committee should examine. Just last week a Washington Post editorial commented on the need for the District to put a ceiling on borrowing. I agree, and Congress should reassert its role as the guardian of the city’s fiscal health and creditworthiness.

So why are we here?

Yesterday’s Washington Post editorial got it right. This hearing is not really about the physical safety of District residents and federal employees. We’re here out of concern for the political safety of some conservative Democratic Members of Congress. As the Post said, "House Democrats make much of their support for the right of the District to self-government. Too bad they are willing to sacrifice this basic tenet of American democracy to the political self-interests of members cowed by the powerful gun lobby."

D.C. is rewriting its gun laws in light of the Supreme Court’s Heller decision. Some would like them to do it faster. Some would like them to do it differently. And some would like to do it for them. I support D.C. Home Rule. Always have. And I support the rights of the citizens of the District of Columbia under the Second Amendment - rights they’ve been denied for too long. The two shouldn’t be in conflict. Like the states and counties we represent, the District has self-governing authority to write the laws under which its citizens live. But the District, as the federal city, also has Congress as its legislature of last resort. We should exercise that power thoughtfully, surgically and sparingly.

Hearings like this about the impact of lawful gun ownership by D.C. citizens won’t overturn the Supreme Court opinion or absolve the city from its obligation to operate under gun laws that pass constitutional muster. But it’s important we hear from District officials and others on how they’ll approach important public safety issues in the post-Heller world. In terms of legislation, we all know the deal has been cut by the Democratic Leadership to vote on H.R. 6691. So, one way or the other, it seems the only sure impact of any legislation dealing with D.C. gun laws will be that the Democratic House will have abandoned its professed allegiance to home rule.