[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 59 (Tuesday, April 15, 2008)]
[House]
[Pages H2329-H2334]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA VOTING RIGHTS
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of
January 18, 2007, the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms.
Norton) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority
leader.
General Leave
Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks
and include extraneous material.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia?
There was no objection.
Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, this is a special day for all Americans,
none more so than the people I represent, the residents of the District
of Columbia. And so I have come this evening to offer some remarks,
remarks that I think are particularly justified today when the
residents of the District of Columbia, like all other American
citizens, are paying their Federal income taxes. The difference is they
are doing so without any voting representation on the floor of the
House or the Senate.
First, I begin with some gratitude to my colleagues, the so-called
Blue Dogs, for whom this hour had been claimed, but who gave it to me
this evening because of the subject matter of this special order. I
very much appreciate their support. For those of you who don't know who
the Blue Dogs are, they are the more conservative Members of the House.
They supported the D.C. Voting Rights bill that indeed passed the
House, one of the first.
We hadn't been here 6 months, I don't think we had been here more
than 4 months before this bill to give the District of Columbia
citizens, the citizens of the Nation's Capital, voting rights only in
this chamber, the people's House. It was indeed passed by the House of
Representatives, mind you, the only House that is affected. In a Nation
known more for its incrementalism than for rapid change to effect
justice, we have accepted the notion that we must begin with the House,
the people's House. After more than 200 years of meeting every
obligation that has been met by every other citizen, we think it is not
too much to ask that the residents of the Nation's Capital have the
vote at least in the people's House. We are asking for no more than
that.
Our thanks go especially to the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi,
who made it a priority to pass this bill and put her full energy behind
it. She was willing to bring it to the floor. She made it clear that
she, as the leader, the first woman to lead the House of
Representatives, wanted to put her signature on this bill and asked
four Members on both sides of the aisle to support it. Majority Leader
Steny Hoyer, a longtime supporter of this bill, as well, put all of his
energy in it. Particularly when it was stopped first by a parliamentary
maneuver, he worked tirelessly until he got this bill passed. He has
been with us every step of the way. These two leaders have stood for
full representation and equality for Americans in so many ways. No one
should be surprised at the leadership they have given us on this bill.
I have to very especially mention Congressman Tom Davis who doggedly
started us on what has been a truly bipartisan path. When I was in the
minority and he indeed became the chief sponsor of the House-only bill,
I discovered indeed a partner for us. The State of Utah barely missed
getting a House vote in the last census. And they missed it for reasons
I have to put into the Record. Utah sends many of its citizens who
willingly agree to go away and become missionaries when they are young
for a few years of their lives. They, of course, are missionaries for
their Mormon church. And they are coming home to their families. Like
others who come home, the State of Utah wanted them counted since they
remained residents. They took the matter all the way to the Supreme
Court. And because of the way the Census Bureau and the administrative
process had ruled, the Court allowed the census to stand. And all of
these missionaries exercising their freedom of religion, their freedom
of speech, while being residents of their State, lost their State a
seat.
To say the least, residents of Utah were not joyful about this. And
they have joined us in what would seem to be the example par excellence
of win-win in our country. A heavily Republican district and State,
some would say the most Republican State in the union, a big city in
the United States tends to be Democratic, this one is, joined together.
It's a wash politically. Nobody gains and nobody loses. Why hasn't this
bill passed?
Well, it has almost passed. And we will get into that in a minute.
Just a few more indications of gratitude. Henry Waxman, chairman of the
committee that has direct jurisdiction, along with another chairman,
John Conyers, were extraordinary leaders in this process. I mentioned
Utah. I thank Governor Jon Huntsman for coming here to testify about
the importance of the bill and the entire Utah delegation,
Representatives Bishop, Cannon, and Matheson.
I particularly thank the 219 Democrats and 22 Republicans who won a
vote of 241-177 and passed this bill last year. And may I thank the 8
Republicans and 49 Democrats who have brought us so close that it is
hard to believe that we are not already there.
Only in the other body is 57 percent not a majority. The Senate has
required 60 votes. We are three votes short. We are so close. I have
every reason to believe that we will, in fact, this year pass the D.C.
Voting Rights Act, creating a historic 110th Congress that every
Member, I think, will be proud of.
I have to thank the local and national civil rights organizations
that have been a formidable force spreading around the country the
message. There are too many of them to name on the local level. The
great leader has been DCVote Ilir Zerka and his army of residents in
the region and in the city carrying a message for us, the leadership
conference on civil rights, the Nation's great leader on civil rights
matters has been a major figure in this bill. We could not possibly
have gotten this far without them, along with every major civil rights
organization in the country.
I particularly thank my own mayor, Adrian Fenty, and city council
chair, Vincent Gray, who joined every mayor and city council of the
District of Columbia in supporting our residents and
[[Page H2330]]
this bill. And I especially thank the residents of the District of
Columbia, living and dead, who have fought for equal citizenship over
the ages.
I have not yet mentioned my Senate partners, but they have been
equally important to this bill. You don't pass a bill just in the
House. Senator Joe Lieberman was the lead Democratic sponsor.
Consistent with the way he has helped me on voting rights in every
iteration, and there have been several different kinds of bills, he
became the lead sponsor here.
A very special word of thanks goes to Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah.
Some of you may think that Orrin Hatch comes to this because, after
all, he represents Utah. And he does. But had you had the pleasure of
hearing Senator Hatch in the committee hearings, you would understand
that he is moved by a deep principle about voting rights. His principal
reason for voting rights dominated much of what he had to say about
people who pay taxes and go to war without representation. I thank
Senator Orrin Hatch who was a good friend of mine before this bill. He
has endeared himself to me in ways I will never be able to pay by the
way in which he has stood fast with us, yes, because his State is
involved. Of course, that is his primary obligation. But making it
clear in the way he discusses the bill that there is a deeply rooted
principle in his support.
The many supporters of this bill will forgive me for not making this
a calling of the roll. But I come to the floor because on tax day in
the District of Columbia, people have gone all over the city to assure
residents of the very substantial progress we are making. DCVote and
its coalition have been all across the United States targeting seven
States and have done a remarkable job. I have a little bit to say about
that.
What I want to do this evening during this special order hour is to
essentially discuss this issue from three perspectives. Whose rights
are we talking about? What barriers are there? And whose responsibility
is it to remedy this matter?
{time} 1945
I start with whose rights they are, because the greatest frustration
I have had as a Member of the House is that most Americans do not know
that 600,000 people live in the Nation's Capital and don't have the
same rights as they have. A lot of them have been in the armed services
with people in Washington, DC. They come here, 20 million of them,
every year. There is no indication, until they begin to see license
plates that say ``no taxation without representation'' on those
official license plates, which was put there precisely to relieve our
frustration that most people simply do not know.
I have a word to say about that, because increasingly people do know
and support us. According to the Washington Post poll, 61 percent say
they support the bill I have come to the floor to speak to tonight.
That is close to an American consensus today.
Why would people be for the vote? They are Americans, that is why. Do
you really think that in this country today, at war, a country where
love of country is manifest in everything we do, they will do anything
but say that people who have fought, yes, and died in every war since
the country was created, including the war that created the country
itself, the American Revolutionary War, that people who pay taxes the
same way they do, are just like them, should not have representation?
It is a thoroughly American idea. So don't be surprised that 61 percent
today support this bill, in the House only, because that is all that is
before the other body, the Senate, as we speak.
Who are these people? We thought we would let you see exactly who we
are talking about. This man's name is Larry Chapman, a resident of the
District of Columbia. I am proud to represent him. I don't know him. I
checked him out. He lives here. I represent him. By the way, note his
uniform. He is a firefighter. He is a man who risks his life for
whoever is here, a Member of Congress, a visitor, a resident, a
regional resident.
I don't represent this man, Jayme Heflin. He lives in Maryland. He
does the same thing for Maryland that Mr. Chapman does for the District
of Columbia.
I don't think you will find an American citizen, if you went out with
a microphone, who thinks that Larry Chapman, who lives in the District
of Columbia, should not have representation in the Congress, someone
who can vote on war or peace or raising or lowering taxes, and that
Jayme Heflin should.
That is who I represent. The difference between these two men cannot
be seen in their faces, cannot be seen in their jobs. The only
difference is where they live. They live within a few miles of one
another, because Maryland is part of our region, a region without
borders, as a matter of fact. If you go to Maryland, you won't even
know you are there.
Both of them pay Federal taxes. Both of them don't like it, and both
of them do it. There should be no difference between Larry Chapman and
Jayme Heflin. There is no difference. The only difference is a
difference that only this body can correct.
Why do I say only this body? Because the Congress has exclusive
jurisdiction over the Nation's Capital. The Framers were intent upon
one thing and one thing only when they set up the Nation's Capital. It
certainly wasn't to deprive us of the vote. It was to make sure we
weren't in a State, because you couldn't tell when the State's
jurisdiction would conflict with the Federal jurisdiction. That is the
only principle that was at stake. And, indeed, all the evidence is that
the last thing they would have done would have been to give a vote to
Mr. Heflin and not to Mr. Chapman.
The reason we know it is that four signers of the Constitution which
gave the Congress this jurisdiction were from Maryland and Virginia,
which contributed the land for the city where we are today, two from
Maryland and two from Virginia. They contributed land on which a
sizable number of their own constituents were living.
They made sure that in the 10-year transition period during which the
land was being shifted, that their residents would still have the vote.
But once, of course, it left the jurisdiction of Maryland and Virginia,
it was up to the Congress. And the first Congress, in so many words,
promised that when the land came after 10 years under the complete
jurisdiction, that these residents would indeed continue to have the
vote.
We know it for sure, because not only were these residents of
Maryland and Virginia living in the territory, but among them were men
who had fought in the Revolutionary War. The one slogan that every
school child knows from that war is we are fighting against no taxation
without representation. It is inconceivable and it is impossible and it
simply did not happen that the Framers of the Constitution from
Maryland and Virginia gave the land and said, take away the vote from
the people we represent once you have jurisdiction.
Maryland couldn't give us the vote once we became the Nation's
Capital. Virginia couldn't do it. Only the Congress can do it. The
Constitution itself makes clear that the grant of exclusive
jurisdiction to the Congress means that the Congress is empowered to
offer this correction that has been needed for much too long.
This is another resident of the District of Columbia whose work all
of us would admire, because she is a teacher. Her name is Chandra
Jackson-Sounders, teaching and counseling in the D.C. public schools
for 17 years. A native Washingtonian, like me. She pays Federal income
tax, like all the rest of us who live here. We are not immune from
that. There she is, teaching children.
Who would deny this young woman, who has committed herself to one of
the hardest jobs in the country, who pays hefty federal income taxes,
the same rights that they have? No American. No one imbued with the
spirit of our Constitution or of the native ethic, the ethic that gave
birth to the country, no taxation without representation.
The more people know about D.C. voting rights, the more support we
have. I ought to thank Stephen Colbert right here on the House floor,
because at least four times he has invited me on the Colbert Report to
make fun of the District of Columbia for not having voting rights,
until under cross-examination one day on his program I found
[[Page H2331]]
out that he was born in the District of Columbia himself. He has
managed to get himself in the portrait gallery, to be sure, either in
the men's room or in a corner close to it.
But I must here pay tribute to Stephen, whom I call Colbert, because,
more than all we have been able to do, he has gotten the message out
that 600,000 people live in the Nation's Capital, pay taxes, and do not
have the same representation as they do. He makes fun of me. That is
why I go on and allow it. ``You must not be in the United States.'' He
said, ``Who could you possibly represent?'' ``Why don't you move into
the country?'' That is what I have to take.
But taking what Colbert has thrown at me has gotten people to
understand, yes, through his jostling and joking, what is a very
serious matter; that in a country that is trying to bring democracy all
over the world, including particularly Iraq, where we have given so
many American lives, over 4,000, there are people right here who don't
have the same rights that people from the District of Columbia are, as
I speak, fighting to get for the residents of Iraq, Afghanistan and so
many other countries.
Support for D.C. voting rights keeps going up. I noted earlier that
61 percent say that they are specifically for that bill, because that
is the question we asked. You ask them the question, this is the kind
of response you get. ``Do you support equal voting rights for the
people of the District of Columbia?'' In 1999, you got 72 percent of
Americans saying yes. In January 2005, you got 82 percent.
Thank you, Colbert, D.C. Vote, Leadership Conference on Civil Rights,
and all of those who have helped us get the message out. Eighty-two
percent of the American people. Not a surprising figure, not in the
United States of America.
What you may believe is that, well, they have got a lot of liberals
up here, and what do you expect? A very scientific poll was done behind
these figures. With 72 percent and 82 percent, you know there must be
some bipartisanship here.
But are they all piled up in one part of the country? Are they all
really young people or older people? Who are these people who support
D.C. voting rights? ``Norton says who the people are who want voting
rights. Well, who are these people who registered these large numbers,
61 percent for this bill, up to 82 percent if you ask the bald question
about equal voting rights in Congress for the people who live in the
Nation's Capital?''
This is perhaps the most important data, and it is fascinating for
the Senate in particular to bear in mind, because it breaks down who we
are talking about in the American public.
Notice how far out the blue bar goes. That is because there is no
support less than 77 percent among all adults, and 82 percent is that
figure I just showed you. Women, 86 percent; men, 78 percent.
Let's look at the age groups. Is this all a young persons' thing, or
what? Young people, well, they were raised to believe that democracy is
for everybody. They are off the charts, 87 percent. But look at 35-54.
They are at 78 percent. And look at 55 years old and above, many of
whom were raised at a time when many Americans did not have equal
rights and perhaps imbued that culture. 55-years-old and above, 82
percent of the American people support equal voting rights for the
people who live in the Nation's Capital.
Sometimes we find that some parts of the country favor certain kinds
of action more than others. You are quite aware that some parts of the
country are more military, some parts of the country are considered
more liberal, so it was important to know who are we talking about. And
this I found perhaps the most fascinating part of the revelation.
{time} 2000
Northeast, 84 percent of the people; midwest, 80 percent of the
people, these are for equal voting rights; south, ladies and gentlemen,
put aside your stereotypes, 84 percent of southerners support equal
voting rights in Congress for the people of the District of Columbia;
west, 80 percent.
So the south and the northeast give us the largest majority or super
majorities, 84 percent each with midwest and west right behind them at
80 percent. In this metropolitan area, where they know us best, have
seen us at our best and our worst, the metropolitan area includes
Virginia, Maryland, and the figure is 82 percent.
In the nonmetropolitan area, beyond the counties immediately
surrounding the District where people tend to be more conservative,
hardly any difference, 83 percent there support it; 82 percent in the
immediate area.
I am still looking, friends, for some break in the public of the kind
we regularly see on things like guns or the military or the war. It
will not be found in this graph, not on this Tax Day, not tomorrow, not
in the America of the 21st century, maybe in the America of the 19th
century, early 20th century.
But now for decades, I believe it would be difficult to find
Americans who would stand up and salute the proposition that people who
are paying Federal income taxes, that people who are fighting and dying
in war are being denied a say-so on those issues in this House.
You break it down even further to see who you are talking about, how
about those who have a family member in the military, 82 percent
support D.C. voting rights. How about a favorite that is often cited as
difference among Americans, regularly attend services, we note at a
moment when the Pope has just arrived in town, but we see that that's
82 percent of those who regularly attend religious services.
We, of course, have family or friends living in D.C., I wouldn't even
cite those. You would expect those people to perhaps be more aware and
more inclined to be with us.
Registered voters, 81 percent of registered voters support equal
voting rights for the residents of the city, and here is one that
cannot be put aside, because this is the great divider, Republicans and
Democrats, 77 percent of Republicans, 82 percent of independents, 87
percent of Democrats, no statistical difference even by party on so
basic a matter as whether or not the people I represent, and I should
be required to do whatever this chamber says, along with the others,
and not have any say, utterly and thoroughly un-American even to state
such a proposition.
Well, the Republicans who supported us in the House on this bill, led
by Tom Davis, including a number of others who voted for us, didn't
have this figure before them. They had a gut instinct of what it means
to be an American.
There are any number of them who could be quoted. Among the most
eloquent was Representative Mike Pence, who actually wrote out what was
in his head and published it and posted it, ``Why I Voted for D.C.
Representation in the House,'' and the senior Senator Lugar, one of the
eight Republicans who voted for this bill. But it was Mike who started
it here, because the bill started here.
Let me quote from Representative Mike Pence, a leader of most
conservative matters here, understood to be a leader in the House and
particularly a much-respected conservative leader. He is a wonderfully
affable man, but he would be the first to note that he and I have
considerable differences on issues that come before this House.
But at the time this bill was pending, Representative Pence wrote,
``The fact that more than half a million of Americans living in the
District of Columbia are denied a single voting representative in
Congress is clearly a historic wrong and justice demands that it be
addressed.''
He goes on to say, ``The old book tells us what is required,'' and he
quotes the Bible, ``do justice, love kindness and walk humbly with Your
God.''
Then he says, ``I believe that justice demands we right this historic
wrong. The American people should have representation in the people's
House. I believe that kindness demands that, like Republicans from
Abraham Lincoln to Jack Kemp, we do the right thing for all Americans
regardless of race or political creed. And I believe humility demands
that we do so in a manner consistent with our Constitution, laws and
traditions. The D.C. voting bill gets this test, and I am honored to
have the opportunity to continue to play some small role in leading our
constitutional republic ever closer to a more perfect
[[Page H2332]]
union.'' Those are the words of Representative Mike Pence. I believe
they are words that history will remember.
The support continues to grow, the support reflected here, just to
name a few of the States that have been visited, not by me but by
residents in the city of the region. I want to thank the citizens of
Oregon; of New Hampshire, where a whole resolution has been introduced
to support the bill; of Montana, where the editorial boards of the
major newspapers, in Montana, the Butte Chamber of Commerce, have
accorded the residents of the District of Columbia every courtesy in
meeting with them and the papers have editorialized for voting rights.
I named those States because DC Vote--Leadership Conference on Civil
Rights have targeted those States among others.
I particularly note a resolution in New Hampshire, pending in both
the New Hampshire House and Senate that is quite extraordinary. It
expresses regret that New Hampshire's two U.S. Senators voted against
the D.C. voting rights bill and calling upon them to correct that in
the next vote.
As one of the sponsors, Representative Cindy Rosenwald said, and I am
quoting her, ``We are, here in our small corner of the country,
democracy's most passionate supporters. Therefore, I believe we should
expect the same level of commitment and passion for representative
democracy from those elected officials who represent New Hampshire in
Congress.''
Thank you, New Hampshire. I thank many others whose efforts today, up
to 10 States, I cannot specifically acknowledge in the time allotted to
me.
I bring you deep gratitude from the residents of the District of
Columbia who have only my voice, no voice in the Senate, only my voice,
and whose voice, of their own, you will see in the Internet but who do
not have ways to reach you, which is why I am here this evening.
I must thank, in particular, the legal scholars who have come
forward. In searching for legal comment, we found many willing to come
forward, and from constitutional scholars of various views, there were
any number who were particularly helpful in expressing and answering
the hard questions that have been raised, hard questions, not because
most Americans would consider them such, but if you happen to be a
constitutional lawyer, and I, myself, practice constitutional law,
these questions become closer questions than if you are an American who
does not have to take the Constitution into effect in forming your own
view.
I particularly thank Kenneth Starr, former judge Kenneth Starr;
former judge, Patricia Wald. Kenneth Starr is a Republican. Patricia
Wald is a Democrat. Both have testified for the bill.
I thank Professor Viet Dinh who has come forward in a quite
extraordinary way. He is the point man on constitutional issues, or
was, when Mr. Ashcroft was the attorney general. He has been, perhaps,
the foremost conservative scholar to come forward for the bill.
I particularly thank Walter Smith, a former corporation counsel, or
attorney general, as it is now called. Richard Bress of Latham &
Watkins, Walter Smith of D.C. Appleseed, these are different scholars
who are from different parts of the constitutional spectrum who have
come forward to be helpful.
But you I think that I ought to cite conservative scholars. Frankly,
those are the scholars on whom we have chiefly relied because we
believe that if we relied chiefly on Judge Wald or Walter Smith or many
others who have helped us, then we would have greater difficulty in
showing that this bill is eminently constitutional.
Remember, it's the constitutional issue to which the opponents have
been pushed back. They can't make an argument that sounds in American
terms that the average person could understand. So they go into the
Constitution.
That, my friend, is defamation to the framers, because what they are
saying, hey, the framers did it to you. We don't have anything to do
with it.
Of course, if the Framers did it to us, then we must pass the bill
and let the only part of our Government that is empowered to tell us
that do so, and that's the Supreme Court.
But, no, they sit back and fancy themselves constitutional scholars
for the purpose of saying that 600,000 residents who pay taxes like
they do, have served in the country's wars, should not have the same
rights they do. This in the 21st century, no less.
Professor Viet Dinh, who served as a scholar, who served in the Bush
Justice Department under former Attorney General Ashcroft, and,
therefore, advised the whole Justice Department, he was the man who
advised them on constitutional matters, testified there are no
indications, textual or otherwise, to suggest that the Framers intended
that congressional authority, under the District clause, that's the
District of Columbia clause, extraordinary and plenary power in all
other respects, would not extend to grant District residents
representation in Congress.
You see, we are left with either the Framers intended to have the
people who lived in the Nation's Capital they just set up without the
same rights as everybody else, or they intended somebody to be able to
give it. Now, if they intended us not to have the same rights then we,
of course, have to amend the Constitution.
But I would suggest that unless you can cite evidence of somebody
getting up and saying that, that you have got to find a better reason.
{time} 2015
To hide behind the Framers is an act close to cowardice. If you think
we shouldn't have it, you should say why. Take the responsibility, but
do not say that the Framers of the Constitution from Maryland and the
Framers of the Constitution from Virginia meant to disenfranchise their
own residents. Do not say that the Framers of the Constitution meant
once you crossed the District line, you would lose the rights you had
on the other side in every other State of the Union.
The opponents rest on one word, and that is the Constitution says
that the vote in the House should go to Members of States. They say ah-
hah, the District is not a State; ergo, no vote for you people.
Well, the fact is that since the passage of the Constitution, this
government, this Congress, has defined the District as a State in over
500 provisions of United States Code. The only way in which we are not
defined as a State respects our voting rights, and that brings me to
the floor today.
Cite chapter and verse to prove that, and I shall. And what I am
citing is not only the language of the Constitution, I am citing the
Supreme Court of the United States who interprets the Constitution. The
Supreme Court has approved action by this Congress equating the
District of Columbia with the States for constitutional purposes. Here
is the language from the Constitution that the Supreme Court over the
years says includes the District of Columbia although the word
``State'' is used.
``Commerce among the States'' taken to court, the District is not a
State and shouldn't be included in the commerce clause. Answer from the
Supreme Court: For these purposes, the Nation's Capital is included
when the word ``State'' is used.
Suits between citizens of different States, means something special
for the District of Columbia, it was alleged, not a State, took it to
the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court says citizens of different States
of course includes the Nation's Capital. They said this is not what we
meant, we only meant that the District of Columbia would not be a part
of a State. We set up something that for lack of a better word we
called a District of Columbia.
What, is the Commonwealth of Virginia not a State? Are they not a
State because they are called a Commonwealth? Is the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts not a State? How in the world can one hinge a right so
precious in this democracy on the use of the word ``State'' when it has
been interpreted by the Supreme Court of the United States in decade
after decade to include the District of Columbia?
I must cite on this April 15, Tax Day, my very favorite. If indeed
States means or does not mean the District of Columbia, the people I
represent want every dime we have paid to the Federal Treasury back
because the 16th amendment says there shall be direct taxes by the
Federal Government. Direct taxes only on citizens of the States; if we
are not a State, you owe us a lot of money. It is almost silly to even
try to argue from so slim a use of language.
[[Page H2333]]
When one reads the Federalist Papers, if one reads American history,
if one reads decade after decade where the matter of State has been
challenged when someone was trying to pay less taxes or trying to get
out of the commerce clause, and in a dozen other ways I could name and
the Supreme Court has simply pushed them back, I don't think you would
be quick to continue to make that argument.
I want to especially thank the Blue Dogs again for their generosity
in giving me their hour. I want to thank all of those on both sides of
the aisle who have rallied after more than two centuries finally to
this idea.
I want to leave you with a picture in your mind, this young woman,
Chandrai Jackson-Saunders who pays her Federal income taxes and teaches
our children and doesn't have the vote.
I am moved to tears and to laughter by a series of cartoons making
fun of our country for not giving the residents of the District of
Columbia a vote. Here is one that happened to be in the Washington
Post. It says ``Import Democracy'' on a raised placard, then in small
print at the bottom it says ``No Invasion Necessary.'' No, all that is
necessary is that we face up to 200 years of obligation.
For me, I confess that this matter is deeply personal. I am the third
generation of Holmes family to live here. My great grandfather, Richard
Holmes, was really born in Virginia as a slave. One day he left the
plantation. He just walked away; nobody must have been looking. In my
family no one says that he gathered together in some kind of heroic
way--he left the plantation--and got as far as here and started our
family.
My father was born and raised in District public schools, just like
my grandfather. My grandfather entered the D.C. Fire Department in
1902. We have long been without our rights here. So for me it is first
and foremost a matter for the people I represent.
But in the interest of revealing all that is concerned, hiding
nothing, it is hard for me to say that there is not a personal matter
associated here, particularly when I see it is in the Senate that the
bill is now awaiting 60 votes, although it already has 57 percent of
the Senate, because what I remember as a child growing up without a
mayor, without a city council, there was no representation whatsoever
here. The place was ruled by the Congress. The President appointed
three commissioners; no democracy of any kind. And it was a segregated
city. Oh, how segregated. The schools were not integrated until Brown
v. Board of Education.
When I was at Dunbar High School and had mostly finished high school,
the District was one of six Brown v. Board of Education cases. So the
notion of filibuster rings far too personal to me. I remember the
filibusters of the Senate, my friends, as a child. In the Senate, the
N-word was routinely used. This place was entirely controlled by
southern Democrats who controlled every subcommittee and every
committee because racial rhetoric and racial prejudice were used to get
them back to the House each and every year.
It gives me great grief and sadness to see that Republicans have not
been in the forefront of this bill except for those who have stepped
forward and unabashedly embraced the bill and Republican traditions
because it was after the Civil War that the District first got a
delegate and home rule. It was the Republican Congress that first gave
us democracy. It was the so-called radical Republicans who in the
Nation's Capital exercised their right and their obligation to see that
democracy came here. It was the end of Reconstruction and the Tildon-
Hayes compromise with the withdrawal of Federal troops from the South
and the resurrection of Democrats that overturned home rule for the
District of Columbia and sent a delegate who had only a term or two
back to where he came from. It was Republicans who were in the
leadership then. In the name of the great leaders who gave birth to
their party, you would expect them to be in the leadership now.
The interesting thing is that this is a now-majority African American
city, but that is a recent vintage. The segregated city I grew up in
was a majority white city. It didn't become majority black until close
to 1960. Black people in the minority took a lot of white people down
with them because the fact is that race played a central role in the
denial of voting rights and home rule to the District of Columbia.
Today it is partisanship. But it was unabashedly race. Even though
blacks were a minority, there were enough blacks here so that southern
Democrats wanted to be sure there was no home rule and no
representation, even a delegate. They were not bashful about it.
To quote one Alabama Democratic Senator, ``The Negroes flocked in,
and there was only one way out, and that was to deny suffrage and power
to every human being in the District,'' that means regardless of race,
creed or color.
{time} 2030
I don't want to hide from whence cometh what gave birth to the issue
here.
Senator Ed Brooke, a native Washingtonian, became the first popularly
elected Black Senator, born and raised in the District of Columbia,
went to the same high school I did. But he had to go outside the
District of Columbia to get any vote at all, and certainly a vote in
the Senate.
So there's a very sorry racial history behind it all. The last thing
Republicans want to do is to attach their partisanship to that history
because they're not a part of that history. That history was led by
Democrats, and mostly southern Democrats.
Now, the Democratic Party, to its great credit, has taken that off of
itself, scrubbed that terrible stain, that racial stain off. To their
great credit, the Republicans joined us when we reauthorized the 1965
Voting Rights Act.
There is no difference, no difference whatsoever here. There's no
difference when you are talking about the District of Columbia which,
in the Vietnam war, lost more men than did 10 States; in World War II,
lost more men than did four States; World War I, lost more men than did
three States, and the Korean War, lost more than did eight States. We
have fought, died, bled for the country we love.
The notion that there would be a Member who'd have to come to the
floor to ask for such a right in 2008 should be unthinkable.
I particularly, tonight, dedicate these remarks not only to those who
paid their taxes today, but to those who've given their lives in Iraq
and Afghanistan and most recently, Darryl Dent, the D.C. National
Guard, Specialist Darryl Dent, Army Reservist Lieutenant Colonel Paul
Kimbrough, Marine Lance Corporal Gregory MacDonald, Marine Lieutenant
Colonel Kevin M. Shea, among thousands over the years that we have sent
to war, proudly so.
I dedicate these remarks to Wesley Brown, the first black graduate of
the U.S. Naval Academy is still living. There have been at least 20
Blacks who had gone to the Naval Academy. They had to be what we called
super Black. They were driven out by the most horrendous racial
harassment. The story of sacrifices made--what's my time?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Tsongas). Ten seconds.
Ms. NORTON. The story of sacrifices made is not a story I should need
to tell. All I should need to say is what I leave you with this
evening, with my gratitude for your support and friendship.
I am an American. I represent 600,000 Americans. Please do all you
can to see to it that we are treated as you would want to be treated,
like other Americans.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Madam Speaker, today is Tax Day and it is
the day that D.C. residents pay their Federal income taxes. Yet D.C.
residents remain without a vote. D.C. residents enjoy many of the
benefits of U.S. citizenship but they lack the vote.
The rest of the Nation votes as District residents pay their taxes
and serve in wars abroad in Iraq and Afghanistan. Andy Shallal, a D.C.
citizen said it best, ``People like me of Iraqi ancestry and even my
son, who was born in the United States, are entitled to vote in the
Iraqi's election due in large part to the service of the citizens of
the District of Columbia and other Americans who have fought and died
in Iraq.'' In spite of D.C. residents' service in foreign wars and even
in the American Revolution, and every war since where U.S. was
involved, D.C. residents cannot vote in their own country.
Tax Day is a bitter reminder to the Nation that the founders of our
country who staged their revolution for representation would then deny
representation to residents of their very
[[Page H2334]]
own capital city. Professor Viet Dinh, President Bush's former
assistant attorney general for constitutional matters, has wiped away
the major argument that because the District is not a state, its
American citizens cannot vote in the House by detailing the many ways
in which ``since 1805 the Supreme Court has recognized that Congress
has the authority to treat the District as a state and Congress has
repeatedly exercised this authority.'' My favorite is the 16th
amendment which requires only that citizens of states pay Federal
income taxes. Why then have District residents continuously been taxed
without representation?
There is a terrible racial stain that has been at the core of the
denial of the rights of D.C. citizens. Congress required the same
racial segregation in schools and public accommodations in D.C. and
other parts of the South until the 1954 Brown decision. As one southern
Senator put it, ``The Negroes . . . flocked in . . . and there was only
one way out . . . and that was to deny . . . suffrage entirely to every
human being in the District.''
Former Republican Senator Edward Brooke, a native Washingtonian and
the Nation's first popularly elected black Senator wrote, ``The
experience of living in a segregated city and of serving in our
segregated armed forces perhaps explains why my party's work on the
Voting Rights Act reauthorization last year and on the pending D.C.
House Voting Rights Act has been so important to me personally. The
irony of course, is that I had to leave my hometown to get
representation in Congress and to become a Member.''
Today, on Tax Day, we need to move to abolish the irony and the
tragedy of the many who have come to the Nation's capital seeking
freedom for well over 200 years. It is on this day, that D.C. residents
pay their Federal income taxes without a vote.
Presently, only three votes are needed for Senate passage of the D.C.
Voting Rights Bill. I am a supporter of the bill in the House. I appeal
to your conscience and ask for your vote so that finally there will be
a vote for your fellow Americans here, who have paid for this precious
right many times over in blood and tears. Support the voting rights
bill today.
____________________