February 28, 2019 - Issue: Vol. 165, No. 37 — Daily Edition116th Congress (2019 - 2020) - 1st Session

[Pages H2299-H2302]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 STATEHOOD FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 3, 2019, the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. 
Norton) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority 
leader.
  Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, this week was, for all intents and 
purposes, D.C. Statehood Week in the Capital. I am pleased that, today, 
Senator Carper has announced that he is introducing the Washington, 
D.C. Admission Act to make the District of Columbia the 51st State. I 
am grateful to Senator Carper, who garnered a record number of Senate 
cosponsors last year and has been a most vigorous champion of statehood 
for the District of Columbia.
  I come to the floor for my first time this session to discuss D.C. 
statehood because we have many new Members who may be under the 
mistaken impression that the 700,000 people who live in your Nation's 
Capital are treated in the same rights that your own residents are. I 
beg to differ.
  In this city, the citizens do not have each and every right in this 
Congress. To be sure, we have what is called home rule, and I will 
later indicate that even that is limited.
  The reasons for this unique place, for our Capital, left without the 
full rights of other citizens, has to do with a quirk, an accident, 
where the Framers came to believe that the Capital should not be part 
of a State because they were, in the beginning, parts of various 
States, and they felt that they could not then control what the Capital 
would do.
  Well, of course, they don't want a Capital to be part of a State, but 
they didn't really envision statehood, the Capital as a State, because 
they were thinking of the Thirteen Colonies. And since every city had 
to be in a State, they could only envision putting the city in a State.
  We are about 218 years beyond that, and it is time, way past time--
shall I say, overdue in time--to understand how the Nation's Capital of 
the greatest nation in the world should be viewed and what rights its 
citizens should have.
  So I am very grateful to Senator Carper for the work he has done and 
for his introduction of the bill in the Senate this week, the 
counterpart of the D.C. statehood bill, which I have already introduced 
in the House.
  The bill I have introduced already has 198 cosponsors. I bet--I 
haven't looked closely, but there is probably no bill in the hopper 
that has more cosponsors than the D.C. statehood bill. It is not 
bipartisan yet. That will happen, because this is how we make progress 
on matters in the House of Representatives. We go one House at a time.
  Remember, the District doesn't have any representation in the Senate; 
yet we have gotten a distinguished Senator introducing the statehood 
bill, and he has been most energetic, getting the majority of the 
Democratic Senators on the bill last session.
  I am particularly moved today because of the record number of D.C. 
residents and their colleagues who came to the Congress yesterday to 
demand that they have equal rights with all other American citizens. I 
greeted a room full of residents who had visited every office to tell 
Members what they don't know.
  I am grateful particularly that the Speaker of the House, Nancy 
Pelosi, has strongly endorsed D.C. statehood. I believe that means that 
D.C. statehood will be on the floor this session. I want to thank our 
Speaker for making D.C. statehood a priority, and indicating in her own 
words how important it is that every citizen be treated equally.
  In the same way, Oversight and Reform Committee Chairman Elijah 
Cummings has committed to holding a hearing on D.C. statehood, and I 
will predict this afternoon on the floor that that bill will get out of 
committee and come to the floor of the House for a vote.

[[Page H2300]]

  The progress we are making on D.C. statehood is also seen in the 
inclusion of our statehood demands in what is called H.R. 1. That is an 
all-democracy bill that tries to improve and make sure that full 
democracy in every form is present in the United States. In H.R. 1 are 
extensive findings for D.C. statehood.
  I thank the Democratic majority for including the District of 
Columbia and its plea for statehood in this all important pro-democracy 
bill. It is called the For the People Act, and H.R. 1 was the first 
bill introduced.
  Most Members who come to the Congress come knowing only that the 
Nation's Capital is where all these wonderful memorial buildings are. 
They know that it is a tourist mecca. Many may have come as children or 
even as adults, as tourists. They probably don't know that 30 million 
visitors from all over the world visit our Nation's Capital.
  In other words, most Members of the House who, by the way, will spend 
more time in the District of Columbia than they will spend at home, 
still don't know very much about their own Capital City. They probably 
don't know that only in America does the legislature not grant full 
representation to their Capital City.
  Well, I have just voted on the House floor. I vote on amendments, but 
I did not vote on the final bill. I do vote in what is called the 
Committee of the Whole. The reason I am able to vote there is that, 
when I first came to Congress in 1991, I saw that I could, indeed, vote 
in committee, and I knew there was something called the Committee of 
the Whole.
  Well, what is the difference between voting in committee, like the 
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, for example, where I have 
always served and voted, what is the difference between that and the 
Committee of the Whole? No difference.

                              {time}  1315

  Both are committees that were created by the Congress, not the 
Constitution.
  So, since I vote in committee, I asked for the right to vote in the 
Committee of the Whole. It was granted.
  But only in America, again, could the following happen: my Republican 
friends sued the House for allowing the vote in the Committee of the 
Whole.
  The courts looked at that, pronounced the right of the Congress to 
give that vote in the Committee of the Whole, just as the District has 
the vote in committee, and my Republican friends then appealed.
  At the Court of Appeals, the verdict was, yes, the District of 
Columbia can vote in the Committee of the Whole, just as they vote in 
committee.
  And my good Republican friends didn't quite have the nerve to appeal 
that one to the Supreme Court, but what they did do, when Democrats 
lost the House 2 years later, was to take away a vote, that the courts 
had said was legitimate, from the residents of the District of 
Columbia, who are number one per capita in taxes paid to support the 
government of the United States. And therein lies the outrageous 
anomaly.
  Those who pay the most taxes per capita have the least rights. That 
is why we are determined to get our rights.
  Yes, I have just voted on two gun safety amendments that were on this 
floor today. I couldn't vote on the final bill, but I could vote on 
those amendments. They were important amendments relating to background 
checks.
  By the way, something like 97 percent of the American people in one 
poll were shown to favor background checks. That means you check to see 
if a person has a criminal background and shouldn't have a gun. What is 
the controversy in that one?
  So I was able to vote on those two amendments.
  This is all by way of self-help, thinking through what is it I can do 
to make sure the people I represent have the maximum of representation 
they can. I sure am not crying about what I cannot do, when you 
consider what I can do.
  I am chair of the most important subcommittee now in the 
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. Through that committee, I 
have been able to rebuild whole parts of the District of Columbia: The 
Wharf, the Southwest Waterfront as it is called; the southeast 
waterfront, Capitol Riverfront; parts of Washington, like NoMa.
  I have been able to do a great deal. That is not the issue.
  The issue is equal. Not equal for me personally; equal for those I 
represent, who have paid their dues without getting their rights.
  When I say, ``pay their dues,'' I want to elaborate on that. The city 
I represent has one of the strongest economies in the Nation. It has a 
budget of about $14 billion. That is larger than the budget of 12 
States. Many States are crying poor, trying to tax or not tax their 
residents, embroiled in that controversy.
  The city I represent has a $2 billion surplus. Its per capita income, 
the per capita income of the Americans who live in your Capital City, 
is higher than that of any State.
  Now, we are about the equivalent in size of seven states. Our per 
capita income, though, is higher than that of any State. Take your 
biggest States, Texas and New York and California: higher per capita 
income. That tells you about how much economic activity there is in 
your Nation's capital.
  This city, which is something of a city state, has residents whose 
personal income is higher than that of seven States; we do not cry 
poor.
  Our population growth is among the highest in the Nation. People want 
to live in your Nation's capital. It is one of the most pleasant, 
livable cities in our country.
  What do they pay per capita in taxes? $12,000 per resident in taxes 
to support a government that does not give them equal rights.
  Our Armed Forces--Armed Forces with representatives from every State, 
it should be known--has always had residents of the District of 
Columbia who fought and died in every war, including the war that 
created the United States, the Revolutionary War. You, of course, are 
aware of that war, the war that was fought for taxation without 
representation. No wonder District residents are demanding that our 
Congress live up to that great slogan and standard.
  Now, as I indicated, it is not as if we don't have any rights. The 
Congress passed the Home Rule Act in 1974--I will speak later about the 
deficiencies of the Home Rule Act--but that means that the city does 
have its own elected mayor and its own elected legislature, its 
council.
  How did we get that? Well, first of all, it took over 100 years after 
the Civil War. The first home rule was given to the Capital City by 
Republicans in the 19th century who had fought and won the Civil War, 
where those in my party the Democrats had fought on the side of 
slavery.
  Republicans fought on the side of freedom, and when it saw it had a 
capital that did not have freedom, it gave the District home rule.
  Now, the Republicans had rather much lost their way, as the Democrats 
certainly had, for more than 100 years, but when Richard Nixon was 
President of the United States, the Home Rule Act was passed.
  I would just like to read a few of his words. He said, in signing the 
bill: ``As a longtime supporter of self-government for the District of 
Columbia, I am pleased to sign into law a measure which is of historic 
significance for the citizens of our Nation's Capital.''
  He went on to say: ``I,'' that is Richard Nixon, now, ``first voted 
for home rule as a Member of the House of Representatives in 1948, and 
I have endorsed the enactment of home rule legislation during both my 
terms as President.''
  This was bipartisan, finally. And Republicans, that party, that post-
war party, post-World War II party, deserves credit for understanding 
that the time had come for the Capital City to have home rule.
  That home rule was not complete, in the sense that, and most 
importantly, the District budget has to come here, and it becomes a 
foil on which to press amendments to overturn laws that people may not 
like.

  I have been able to defeat most of those riders, as we call them, or 
attempts to take down D.C. laws, but the D.C. budget shouldn't come 
here at all.
  I recognized that while pursuing statehood, I could get close to 
statehood by simply finishing the Home

[[Page H2301]]

Rule Act and making it whole and complete, and so I embarked on a two-
track road. One, of course, is the one I have just discussed: D.C. 
statehood.
  The other is what I call free and equal D.C. bills, bills that 
together bring us close to statehood. I started with a congressional 
review amendment. This one is really nonsensical.
  The District passes a law. Ultimately, most of those laws matter not 
to the Congress and certainly aren't overturned, but the Home Rule Act 
says that the law shall not become final for 30 days, and that is 30 
consecutive days.
  The House is not in session consecutive days. This is Thursday, for 
example. We are out, so I don't know if it is 3 or 4 days this week 
that would be counted, but you have to count up till you get to 30 
days, and then, of course, the bill can become law.
  Well, it always does. No one uses this particular power at all. If 
they want to overturn D.C. laws, then they simply try to attach it to 
appropriations as they come.
  So this is completely unused, but it is terribly burdensome on the 
city, because you simply have to keep renewing these bills that have 
been passed in the District until you get finally through the 30-day 
period. It is ridiculous: not used by the Congress, burdensome on the 
city, should and could be gotten rid of without anyone noticing it in 
the Congress or caring about it. So I began with that one, which the 
Congress can't possibly care about, because it doesn't even use it 
ever.
  But look at some of the other things that could be done even without 
statehood, which is leading me to embark on this two-track system.
  For example, the District of Columbia does not have a local 
prosecutor, like a district attorney, for example, or a state's 
attorney.
  The U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, a Federal official, 
not chosen by the District of Columbia, but by the President of the 
United States, is essentially the district attorney for the District of 
Columbia. We have no say in this.
  And that U.S. attorney has a jurisdiction that has nothing to do with 
what U.S. attorneys do in other States. It is local law. 90 percent of 
what the U.S. attorney has as jurisdiction is local law, like the law a 
DA would enforce. About 10, sometimes 15 percent of his work is 
Federal.
  We want to send him back to all of his Federal work, give him time to 
do all of that so that we would have a local prosecutor.
  That is one of the bills that this Congress could pass, House and 
Senate, and hardly think about it, because it is certainly 
uncontroversial that the city have its own law enforcement officer to 
enforce its criminal laws.
  And there is a National Guard rule act. Now, that is the equivalent 
of what I am speaking of when I say that the Congress should have no 
interest, only the District.
  The National Guard cannot be called out in the event, for example, of 
a hurricane or a huge snowfall or a flood, only the President of the 
United States can.

                              {time}  1330

  The President of the United States does not need to be bothered with 
tasks related to ordinary emergencies in the District of Columbia. 
Somehow, the Mayor would have to find the President and say: Please 
call out the National Guard. That is the local National Guard.
  We don't want jurisdiction over the National Guard when it comes to 
national matters. We want the same jurisdiction that the States have. 
The States have the right to call out the National Guard to protect 
their residents when there are natural disasters. That is, essentially, 
what we are asking for. So that, too, is part of my Free and Equal D.C. 
series.
  Again, there are 20 of these bills. Let me just indicate one other: 
the District of Columbia Home Rule Clemency Act. I investigated how 
often clemency is allowed or has been afforded, and I found only one 
instance. I will tell you why.
  The President of the United States alone can offer clemency to 
someone who has broken local law. Do you think he bothers or, for that 
matter, should bother? That is why they don't post anyone who gets 
clemency in the District of Columbia.
  These are the kind of local matters that are holdovers, absolute 
holdovers, from the days when the District had no home rule. We can't 
possibly hold our heads up as a democracy and have matters like this 
that cannot be attended at the local level.
  Occasionally, someone comes forward with the notion: We understand, 
Congressman. We want to make sure that the residents of the Nation's 
Capital have the same rights as other places. Here is what we would 
like to do. You come out of a portion of land, contributed by the State 
of Maryland, so why not return the District of Columbia to Maryland, 
then you would get your full and equal rights?
  Well, the first thing you ought to do is ask Maryland about that. 
Then you might ask the District of Columbia. And here I have the 
answers, I think.
  Statehood is endorsed by 86 percent of D.C. residents. Retrocession, 
as it is called, has no constituency either in Maryland or in the 
District.
  This is how I know that.
  There was a poll taken in Maryland asking whether or not they thought 
the District of Columbia should be returned to Maryland. Now, 
understand, Maryland is a very progressive jurisdiction, but it only 
has one big city. That is the city of Baltimore. It apparently is not 
welcoming of another city which has formed its own identity as a State 
and, for that reason, has an identity as a big city.
  I am not surprised that a poll of Maryland legislators found that 92 
percent of Maryland Senators oppose retrocession of the District to 
Maryland, and 82 percent of Maryland Delegates--that is their lower 
house--oppose retrocession.
  What I think this points up is that there are no easy answers: taking 
a city that is almost as old as the Nation itself--the District became 
the Capital City in 1801--and somehow finding some easy answer, which 
turns out to be even harder. It is hard enough to get the Congress to 
recognize statehood.
  Now, suppose we have to go to Maryland, in the case of retrocession, 
and D.C. to get that answer. That is a harder road to climb. It is not 
democratic, because that is not what Maryland wants and that is not 
what the District of Columbia wants. It is a very mechanical answer to 
a very deep problem.
  I indicated that I just voted in the Congress in the Committee of the 
Whole, and I have voted now, in this new Congress, which is about 8 
weeks old, two or three times. Each of those votes are of such great 
significance to the people I represent. It encourages them to believe 
that they will have a vote not only in the Committee of the Whole, but 
they will have a vote where every other American has a vote.
  For them, I can only say that they have overpaid, in every 
conceivable way, for equal rights--yes, by fighting and dying in every 
war and, yes, in Federal taxes paid, per capita, a larger amount than 
any residents.
  For me, of course, this is a labor of love because I was born and 
raised here. I am the daughter of a runaway slave who ran away from 
Virginia.
  It is interesting that he ran away and found himself and settled in 
the District of Columbia as an illegal immigrant, I suppose--a runaway 
slave--but there was work here. He found work in the city and began to 
raise work helping to build the city because they were building the 
roads of the city at that time in the 1830s.
  It was no part of his vision that the District would ever have the 
same rights as other Americans, certainly no part of his vision, as 
then still a slave, that he would have anything to do with it.
  So, this afternoon, as I think about my city and strive for its 
equality, I think of my great-grandfather, Richard Holmes, who sought 
freedom for himself and his family the only way he could: by simply 
walking off of a plantation and making his way to the District of 
Columbia. In his name, I am honored to seek more of that freedom and 
equality for the 700,000 Americans who now live in our Nation's 
Capital.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

[[Page H2302]]

  

                          ____________________