[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 44 (Thursday, March 12, 2009)]
[House]
[Pages H3387-H3393]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




               THE PROGRESSIVE CAUCUS: D.C. VOTING RIGHTS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 6, 2009, the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Ellison) is 
recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the majority leader.
  Mr. ELLISON. Mr. Speaker, as we come in week and week out, the 
progressive message is up again, as we come back every Thursday in 
order to make the progressive position clear on the critical issues.
  I'm going to be joined tonight by a number of colleagues who are 
making their way to the House floor, but tonight our topic is going to 
be the very critical issue of District of Columbia's voting rights, the 
District of Columbia's voting rights, which is a vital and essential 
issue which has been dogging our country for many years. We certainly 
hope that this issue of D.C. voting rights is an issue that the country 
focuses its attention on. D.C. voting rights is a question of giving 
rights and conferring rights upon Americans who pay their taxes, 
Americans who send their children to war, Americans who are equal in 
every way to Americans who live in the various States. And because of 
this important role that they play in our country, this equal role, 
we're looking forward to seeing legislation come out that will allow 
members of the District of Columbia to be able to have a representative 
who can cast a vote in our Congress. We are looking forward to this in 
the near future.
  But before we get to that topic, I want to yield to the gentleman 
from Virginia, who is going to take a moment to make a critical 
statement.


                      Year of the Military Family

  Mr. NYE. I want to thank my colleague very much for yielding to me.
  I am rising today to express my strong support for a resolution this 
House passed yesterday by unanimous vote, Mr. Speaker, the resolution 
urging the President to designate 2009 as the ``Year of the Military 
Family.'' And while no words or gestures can fully match the service or 
sacrifice of our soldiers and sailors, our airmen and Marines, we must 
also remember those Americans that do not wear a uniform: our military 
families.
  In my home district of Hampton Roads, we know all too well that the 
challenges faced by our military families are not just financial. They 
are emotional and physical too. Men and women in my district wake up 
every day not knowing if their loved ones are safe, not knowing when 
they will return, or what scars they might bear when they do.
  Dealing with that and explaining it to your children with a smile on 
your

[[Page H3388]]

face is not easy, and it must never be overlooked. These hardships are 
not limited to our active duty military families. The families of Guard 
and Reserve members also confront regular absences for training, and in 
the years since 2001, more and more families have seen their loved ones 
deployed overseas to Iraq and Afghanistan.
  Mr. Speaker, I look forward to working closely with Chairman Skelton, 
who introduced the resolution, and with all the members of this House 
to support our military families.
  I again thank my colleague for yielding.
  Mr. ELLISON. Let me thank the gentleman for his quick message. Though 
not directly related to what we're talking tonight, we are happy to 
yield to a colleague at any time, particularly in light of his very 
good message.
  But, again, Keith Ellison here coming today with a progressive 
message. The Congressional Progressive Caucus comes every week to make 
the point that there is a progressive vision for America, that we have 
a vision that is inclusive, that brings Americans of all colors, all 
cultures, all faiths together, and this progressive message is going to 
be heard and will be heard every week, week in and week out. This is 
the Progressive Caucus, and we are here with a progressive message.
  And what I want to do without any further delay is to ask my good 
friend from the great State of Missouri to weigh in on this critical 
issue of D.C. voting rights.
  Mr. Cleaver, Congressman from the great State of Missouri, how do you 
understand this critical issue of D.C. voting rights?

                              {time}  1615

  Mr. CLEAVER. Thank you, Congressman Ellison.
  One of the most significant measures to find its way into the United 
States Congress is legislation put forth by our colleague, Eleanor 
Holmes Norton, who is the delegate for the District of Columbia.
  This legislation would allow the citizens of the United States of 
America, who live in the District of Columbia, to finally, to finally, 
after more than 200 years, have the opportunity to cast their vote to 
place a representative in the United States Congress. This is a city of 
almost 600,000 people, and many people around the Nation may be 
surprised to learn that the District of Columbia is the only city in 
the United States that must submit its municipal budget to the United 
States Congress.
  That, in and of itself, is an injustice. That means that this city, 
unlike any other city, is subservient to the Congress of the United 
States and they have no voice whatsoever.
  The sad thing goes further. Forty percent of the District of Columbia 
own their own homes, and coming from those homes are young men and 
women who have died in the world wars, who have died in Vietnam and who 
are still dying in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  Mr. ELLISON. Let me ask, we know that there is no voting 
representation for final passage issues for the people of the District 
of Columbia. Are they exempt from military service, are they exempt 
from taxes?
  Mr. CLEAVER. No, in fact, this is something that most people probably 
don't know and I hope will become angry over this fact. The District of 
Columbia, the residents, pay the second highest taxes of any city in 
the United States, and yet they have no right, given to them by the 
United States Congress, to vote.
  Mr. ELLISON. They have to pay, but when it comes to making decisions 
in Congress, they don't get to play; is that right?
  Mr. CLEAVER. Yes, sir. The people of the District of Columbia work 
hard every day. They pay their taxes, they do the right thing. But when 
time comes to vote, the Government of the United States says, ``Shut 
up, you don't have a right to vote. We just want your tax dollars. We 
want your sons and daughters to go into the sands of Iraq and 
Afghanistan, but we don't want you to vote.''
  Now I was elected to Congress because the people of the Fifth 
Congressional District of Missouri, Kansas City, Independence and the 
surrounding areas, needed a representative in Congress. I am that 
representative, but the people of the District of Columbia, in over 200 
years, have never been able to say, ``This is my representative.''
  So, Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say that if the people of the 
United States would like to get something to be angry about, I mean 
there are a lot of things, fluff issues that people get connected with 
that really are not significant, but if you want something that is 
significant then try getting involved in and becoming supportive of the 
effort to make the District of Columbia, the citizens thereof, an 
opportunity to be full Americans, full Americans.
  They are not asking for anything special, they want what all other 
Americans have, the right to vote, the right to have their own 
municipal government that does not have to cow down to the Federal 
Government.
  As I close, I would just like to say that this is a Nation of people 
who love justice. I mean, of all the nations on the planet, the United 
States is a Nation that says it is a just nation, and yet we will not 
act in any way to support the people of the District. And further, all 
the opinion polls in the United States will reveal that the public, the 
people of the United States are just and they believe that an injustice 
is taking place here.
  Mr. ELLISON. The gentleman from Missouri made a very eloquent and 
clear statement.
  We are here with the Progressive Caucus message tonight. We are 
talking about voting representation for the District of Columbia, and 
we have just been joined by a gentleman from the great State of 
Maryland, who has been a very able and strong representative of many, 
many issues.
  I am just curious to know if the gentleman from Maryland, Elijah 
Cummings, former chair of the Congressional Black Caucus, leading 
member on the Committee for Oversight, has a view on this issue of a 
voting representative for the District of Columbia?
  Mr. CUMMINGS. I want to thank the gentleman and I want to thank you 
and the Progressive Caucus, of which I am a member, for taking up this 
cause.
  I also want to thank Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton. I don't 
care where she goes, she has made it clear that the people of the 
District of Columbia deserve a vote. As a matter of fact, if it were up 
to me, they would have two senators and representatives.
  You know, I have often said that we have one life to live. This is no 
dress rehearsal and this is that life.
  But we have people here in the District, as my good friend from 
Missouri just said, who do it right. They get up every morning, you can 
see them at the bus stops. They go to work, they raise their children, 
they do the same things that people do in your district and in mine. 
They pay their taxes and they are part of the society, building a 
society and making it the best that it can be.
  But then when it comes time for them to have a vote in this body, 
then suddenly we say ``no.'' It just seems to me that that just smacks 
democracy in the face.
  When we think about our representative government, we think about 
going to a town hall meeting, for example, as I did just 2 weeks ago, 
listening to my constituents, and then was able to come to this floor 
and vote their wishes. That's what representative government is all 
about. That's the essence of a democracy.
  The other piece of that democracy that is so significant is that 
individuals's right to vote, and the ability to take that vote and 
transform it into power. They all cannot come here and be a part of 
this process so, therefore, it becomes very significant that they have 
representation.
  As a matter of fact, when you think about it, it's very unfair to the 
people of the District of Columbia when everybody else has a vote. But 
then suddenly when it comes to them, they have no votes, and they can 
express their will, they can express their frustration, but at the same 
time, when it comes to their representative coming to this floor, no 
vote.
  Mr. ELLISON. The gentleman from Maryland just offered views on this 
important topic, and that is this, you have made a very clear case that 
a representative vote for D.C. is fair, it's moral, it's right, and 
it's the proper thing to do. But how will it benefit people across 
America for D.C. to have a vote?

[[Page H3389]]

  Mr. CUMMINGS. If you really think about democracy, I think it goes 
hand in hand with diversity. We know that I would hate to even think of 
having this Congress and not having the views of my friends from 
California or the views from the folks in Utah or the views from the 
folks in South Carolina.
  Although I am from Maryland, I need to understand, I need to have 
their views, and I have to have their input. Because I have often said 
that if we are going to make laws for a diverse society, that we must, 
indeed, be diverse, and we must be representative of that entire 
society.
  Because I think that when you are not totally representative, it 
really--I don't care how you look at it--taints the process.
  Mr. ELLISON. What you are describing to me is kind of like pushing a 
cart in a grocery store when one of the wheels isn't really running 
right.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. That's right.
  Mr. ELLISON. The other three might be, but one of the wheels isn't 
being represented and holding up, and the cart just doesn't run 
smoothly. It almost sounds like you are saying that America is a better 
country, and the values of the people are more accurately reflected 
when everyone has a vote here.
  Is that your opinion?
  Mr. CUMMINGS. That's my view, and I think about the little kids that 
every day do what we did when we were little kids. They stand up to a 
flag and they say,
  ``I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, 
and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God.''
  I guess they have to ask the question, when they found out that they 
don't have a vote and everybody else has one well, is this really, am I 
really a full citizen? If they find out their mother and father can go 
out there to the town hall meeting, can go and vote in the election, 
what have you, but yet, and still, when they ask Mom and Dad, ``How did 
our representative vote, Mommy and Daddy,'' their mother or dad says, 
``I am sorry, son, we don't have a vote.'' There is absolutely 
something wrong with that picture.
  And so all of this is important, and I think it goes to the integrity 
of the process, the Democratic process, the one, this process that we 
participate in all the time.
  But let me just say one other thing. One of the interesting things 
that Ms. Norton will tell you is that when anything comes up 
controversial like needle exchange or anything of that nature, we have 
over and over again, folks from all over the country come and try to 
tell the District of Columbia, by the way, what to do.
  Now, they will not dare having us come to their districts, and they 
wouldn't even think of it and tell them what to do. But yet still they 
will come and tell this District of Columbia what to do, and then, to 
add insult to injury, then not give them an opportunity to have a vote 
in this body. This there is absolutely unequivocally something wrong 
with that picture.
  Mr. ELLISON. Well, you know, Congressman Cummings, you represent a 
district very close to the District of Columbia and, therefore, you 
know people who live in the District and you know people who work in 
the District and I am sure many of them are your friends, your 
colleagues, your constituents, you have come to know on a personal 
basis over time. What is their opinion?
  I mean, did the public want this or is this just something that D.C. 
wants? What do the public opinion polls say? I mean, it looks like the 
Washington Post might have done some research on this issue.
  What, in your view is the public opinion of giving Washington D.C. a 
representative vote in the Congress?
  Mr. CUMMINGS. I can tell you my district in Baltimore, which is only 
an hour drive away from here, folks feel that the residents of the 
District of Columbia are being cheated, period. They are being cheated 
and not treated fairly, and they are overwhelmingly for the District of 
Columbia having their vote.
  And so I just wanted to come on the floor for a moment to be 
supportive. And I think that, again, we cannot give up this fight.
  I get a lot of my energy, to be frank with you, from Congresswoman 
Holmes Norton, because she has never, ever, given up the fight. I also 
applaud our Progressive Caucus. By the way, this should not just be 
about the Progressive Caucus, this should be about all of us wanting to 
make sure that we have a democracy that is truly a democracy.
  Mr. ELLISON. I certainly thank the gentleman and do thank him for 
coming down here, Congressman Cummings, sharing his views about what he 
knows personally about the people of the District of Columbia and the 
surrounding area, sharing his views about how children ask their 
parents about who is sticking up for me, who is speaking up for me. 
And, unfortunately, in the District of Columbia, parents have to say 
well, we have a delegate who is really, really good, but she doesn't 
get to vote on some stuff.
  So I have just been joined by other members of the Progressive 
Caucus, one of whom is Congresswoman Barbara Lee, who is a Member from 
the great State of California and is also the Chair of the 
Congressional Black Caucus; and we also happen to be graced with the 
presence of that very special delegate that we have all just been 
talking about, Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton.
  I think it's important to say that Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes 
Norton is not on her own here, she is not fighting the fight by 
herself. I am all the way from Minnesota, and I feel passionately about 
the importance of the District of Columbia having a representative. And 
I look forward to seeing Eleanor Holmes Norton's vote up there on that 
board count equally with everybody else.
  But this is the position of the Progressive Caucus, that we believe 
firmly in the idea of equal representation.

                              {time}  1630

  Yes, it is true that the Washington Post has done research on this 
issue and it is the will of the American people for the District of 
Columbia to have a vote.
  With that, I'd like to invite the gentlelady from the great State of 
California to weigh in on this topic of the District of Columbia having 
a vote, standing equal with the rest of the country, being able to 
express an opinion.
  I yield to the gentlelady from California.
  Ms. LEE of California. I want to thank the gentleman for yielding, 
but also for your leadership and sounding the clarion call once again 
on behalf of what is right and what is just. And I can't think of any 
issue that we need to address here 24-7 than this issue we are talking 
about today, and that is voting rights for a representative from the 
District of Columbia.
  Mr. ELLISON. Would the gentlelady yield for just a moment?
  Ms. LEE California. I would be happy to.
  Mr. ELLISON. The gentlelady is all the way from California. It takes 
you 4\1/2\ hours to fly here. Why do you care about whether D.C. has a 
vote or not?
  I yield to the gentlelady.
  Ms. LEE of California. I care like the entire country cares, based 
upon the public opinion polling. This is just basic fairness, it's 
basic justice. And let me just say, first of all, I raise my kids here 
in Washington, D.C. They went to Washington, D.C. public schools.
  My children and myself have been residents. Even though I live and 
represent California, we are here 3 or 4 days out of the week. I always 
say that Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton is my representative 3 or 
4 days of the week here in the District. We know the District, we know 
the residents. Whether we do or not, it's important that we make sure 
that there is equal representation; the civil rights issue for a vote. 
One person, one vote. I mean it's unbelievable that here in 2009 the 
District of Columbia does not have voting rights on this floor.
  Let me say that we just went to Montgomery, Selma, and Birmingham 
this past weekend with a great hero, Congressman John Lewis. We walked 
across the Edmund Pettis Bridge. We honored those whose lives were 
given for the right to vote. Bloody Sunday, 44 years ago.
  There's no way that I'd be standing here as a Member of Congress if 
it weren't for the civil rights movement and those martyrs who we 
honored this

[[Page H3390]]

past weekend. In participating in this pilgrimage, I couldn't think 
about anything but about voting rights for the District of Columbia. 
This is the unfinished business of this great civil rights movement.
  There is no way in the world that the residents of the District of 
Columbia should continue to be discriminated against and penalized. The 
District residents pay taxes. Come on, they pay taxes. Our young men 
and women here go to war. They participate in all aspects of our 
country's society and all aspects of our work here, and they are 
citizens of this great country. So why would you deny United States 
citizens the right to have voting representation on this floor? To me, 
again, it's a moral issue. It's an issue of fairness and justice.
  I have got to say that I am very proud as Chair of the Congressional 
Black Caucus that we didn't blink when we said this was a top issue for 
us as the Congressional Black Caucus, to unify and to say that there is 
no way that we are going to back off of this and allow any type of gun 
amendments or any type of amendments taint what should be a bill that 
would celebrate finally the realization of our democracy.
  And so this is quite a moment. We have President Obama in the White 
House. We have major, major breakthroughs in our country. This is a 
transformative moment. And I would say that those who really want to 
put their money where their mouth is, they should really step up to the 
plate and they should say that finally, finally the residents of the 
District of Columbia's day has come when they can fully participate in 
this great democracy.
  Short of that, there still remains much unfinished business. And I 
don't think we want to let this moment pass, Mr. Ellison. I don't think 
residents in your district want to see the residents of the District of 
Columbia continue to be discriminated against. We have what, 500,000 
people who live in the District--600,000? To me, that's unconscionable. 
It's unconscionable. The billions of Federal tax dollars that are paid 
each year and all of the responsibilities of United States citizenship 
are embraced by the residents of the District of Columbia.
  And so on behalf of the Congressional Black Caucus, I just want to 
thank you once again, Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton, for waging 
such a noble fight because this is a day and night struggle for you. I 
want to salute you and I just want to say to you that we are not going 
to rest until you have this vote here.
  I know this vote is not for you personally. This vote is for those 
600,000 people who deserve the right to vote in this body.
  Thank you, Congressman Ellison. I thank the Progressive Caucus for 
your leadership. I hope that the country hears us today and I hope they 
understand what types of games are being played on a civil rights bill 
that should never, never, never happen.
  And so we have got to move on. We have to pass this. We have to pass 
the bill as it is written.
  Thank you again.
  Mr. ELLISON. Thank you for yielding back, gentlelady from California. 
Let me now recognize the person who we have all been building up to for 
a moment. Again, Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton is not by herself 
on this. We are standing shoulder to shoulder with her. But there is 
also no doubt that she has been quarterbacking this issue, she's been 
spearheading this issue. No matter what kind of metaphor you want to 
use, she's been in the leadership of this issue and has offered 
tireless, unrelenting leadership.
  At this time I want to yield to the gentlelady to sort of lay out the 
issues for us on this critical issue of D.C. having a representative 
vote in Congress. I yield to the gentlelady.
  Ms. NORTON. I thank the gentleman not only for yielding to me, I 
thank the gentleman for his leadership. When people see me come to the 
floor, they are used to my coming to the floor for a bill on the 
District, often a bill I've sponsored.
  This is what is known as a Special Order or Special Hour, but it 
wasn't a Special Hour that I requested. I cannot say enough about how 
much it meant to me to hear colleagues who could be on a plane now give 
up that time to come to the floor to speak on this matter.
  The chairman of the Progressive Caucus could be halfway--is from 
halfway across the country in Minnesota; not to mention the Chair of 
the Congressional Black Caucus, who has even further to go.
  Indeed, it ought to be said that today the Congress let out early. So 
many hightailed it, of course, to their own districts, who would have 
otherwise been here.
  The gentlelady from California has my thanks for another initiative 
she took, and that is the meeting that was held yesterday with the 
Speaker of the House.
  The Congressional Black Caucus--of course, this is a largely African 
American city, but it's also a city where the Black Caucus would be out 
in front for the vote if anybody was denied the vote. But the Black 
Caucus has carried this since it was founded. The Speaker, in fact, 
agreed to a meeting with us in her office. It was a very important and 
very gratifying meeting, all at the leadership of the Congresswoman 
from California.

  I cannot thank her enough. It's very important to me what Mr. Ellison 
and Ms. Lee have done because it is their own initiative. It's very 
important to say that, unlike with so many issues, they are broadly 
representative of our House and of our Senate and of our country in 
believing that we should have the vote.
  The poll that I think is duplicated perhaps in what Mr. Ellison had 
shows an unusual majority across all lines; most Democrats and 
Republicans. And think about it. What red-blooded American would oppose 
the right to be represented in the national legislature?
  How many of us would want to be at the mercy of a group of people, 
however benevolent, where none of them was accountable to us, even by a 
single vote. That's been where the residents of the District of 
Columbia have been for 212 years now because the expectation of the 
Framers that Congress would in fact make sure that the vote continued 
after the 10-year transition period has not occurred. Congress dropped 
the ball.
  Those who gave the land from Maryland and Virginia actually got in 
the first Congress legislation that assured them that the residents of 
Maryland and Virginia, who now, after 10 years, would be part of the 
Nation's Capitol, would be left with exactly what they had when they 
left Virginia and Maryland. They voted for Members of Congress. They 
voted in the same way all the other Americans did. It is a long, sad 
story as to why that did not happen.
  Understand what my colleagues have been talking about--only the House 
vote. We are not talking about a vote in the Senate of the United 
States. Only in the people's House. We are seeking from the House 
exactly what the House gave us last time.
  In an extraordinary vote, this House was the first to pass this bill 
and send it to the Senate. They fell three votes short because, 
remember, over there, 51 percent is not a majority. You need 60 
percent. That's a new definition of majority that the Senate has 
created.
  I want to thank my colleagues first for the leadership of my 
colleagues who have come forward as representative, I can truly say, of 
this House. But I want to thank for all of those who voted for this 
bill last year.
  This bill originated with one of my Republican colleagues who thought 
of the idea of making it as bipartisan as possible in the hopes that 
that would draw members of his party as well as my party because the 
District, like every large city virtually in America, has more 
Democrats than Republicans.
  So he teamed us with Utah, which had barely missed getting a vote 
because Mormon missionaries, who were out of the State on a religious 
mission, always had been counted, and they were not counted in the 2000 
census.
  Utah was only too happy to join. I want to thank the Governor of 
Utah, its own delegation, who have been with us from the beginning.
  Two hundred-nineteen Democrats voted for this bill last time. Only 
six voted ``no.'' That is very extraordinary. And I am asking each and 
every one of them to repeat the vote they made last time.
  I was in a meeting with a Republican Member who shares my view on the 
Capitol Visitor Center because there's some things we want to fix about 
how

[[Page H3391]]

staff can conduct their own tours. He came to me afterwards and said, 
By the way, I'm voting for D.C. voting rights this time.
  I do expect that there will be more Republicans voting for the bill 
than last time. Twenty-two Republicans voted for the bill. They were 
under some pressure not to. I want to thank Tom Davis, who spearheaded 
this bill. He has since retired but is helping me even as I speak.
  I do want to say that the bill carries a triple bonus. How often is 
it that we use the word bipartisan and it doesn't quite mean that each 
side gets exactly what the other side gets?
  Look at what happens here. Utah felt cheated, and that is a good word 
that Mr. Cummings used for how residents who pay taxes and go to war 
here feel, and they have joined with the District of Columbia, which 
has never had a vote. If that isn't bipartisan. One for you, one for 
me. No compromises there. One each. If that is not bipartisan, I 
haven't heard a real definition of the word.
  This vote does something for the House. It increases the House for 
the first time in 100 years. Every time that a new State has come in, 
you have the same 435 seats. You're going to have 437 seats now.

                              {time}  1645

  In addition to Republicans and Democrats each getting one, now they 
have one more seat that makes it easier for each to compete. You would 
think that Republicans would particularly welcome that since they are 
in the fastest growing areas of the United States. This failure of the 
House to permanently increase the House in 100 years has been broken if 
we pass this bill.
  Before I ask another question of my good friend who has remained with 
us for a little while, I do want people to know what it is that moves 
most Americans by these kinds of margins, almost two-thirds of all 
adults, for example, being for the bill, almost 60 percent Republicans, 
almost 70 percent Democrats. What is it that moves them?
  Americans would have given us this vote before, I am sure, if we 
could have gotten the word out. We have an indigenous organization 
called D.C. Vote. We have got a leadership conference on civil rights 
with its 200 organizations spreading the word for one-half dozen years 
now. That is the only way that this has become visible enough so that 
people who didn't even know we didn't have the vote, which is most 
Americans, now know it and cannot conceive of it.
  Who can conceive of somebody in our country paying taxes without 
getting any payback on that right to vote ``yea'' or ``nay'' on whether 
those taxes should be paid or not? And I know Americans cannot conceive 
of the experience I have had of going to Arlington Cemetery to bury 
residents from the District of Columbia in the Iraq and Afghanistan 
war, who have now succeeded in getting the vote for the people of those 
countries who did not have it before, and died without having that vote 
in their own Nation's capital, the only capital of any nation to deny 
the vote to its own residents. This is an anomaly. Don't blame it on 
the framers, and don't blame it on the American people. Now that they 
know it, they say do it; don't leave us in this way with this message 
that steps on our message of democracy around the world, a district the 
average size of congressional districts in the United States and a 
district that is larger than some States.
  This point has been made, but let me drive it home when they say the 
notion of having everybody who can vote, except you. What Members are 
referring to is that among the things that the District has to do is to 
send its budget here before it can spend a dollar of its own tax-raised 
money; send its laws here, and let them lie over and see if someone 
wants to overturn them.
  So, this House will see the D.C. appropriation come forward this 
year. That is another way of saying the taxes that the people who live 
in the District of Columbia alone have raised, they will see that come 
forward as an appropriation.
  Now, my good friend from California is now a member of the 
Appropriations Committee. I wish you would describe what it means to 
come forward with this bill, knowing good and well that you are going 
to have a vote on it, every Member on both sides of the aisle are going 
to have a vote on it, but that no Member from the District of Columbia 
will have a vote for it. You are on that committee.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Connolly of Virginia). Under the 
Speaker's announced policy of January 6, 2009, the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lee) is recognized for the balance of the time as the 
designee of the majority leader.
  Ms. LEE of California. Let me first thank you for the historical 
perspective that you have put this in, because I think you are right; 
had the word gone out, had we sounded the alarm throughout the country 
much before now many years ago, these numbers would have been readily 
there many, many years ago, because the American people care about 
democracy and they care about making sure that every person has a vote 
on this House floor.
  As a member of the Appropriations Committee, it is very important 
that we, one, establish the priorities in terms of funding priorities 
for our country; we also establish and work on priorities for our own 
congressional districts. In fact, it is only us who know our districts. 
We know our districts ourselves, just as you know this district, 
Congresswoman Norton. So when the appropriations bills come to this 
floor, it is incumbent upon us to vote for them, ensuring that, one, 
the bills are in the national interest in terms of funding priority, 
but also in our own constituents' interest.
  If a bill comes to the floor that is objectionable to the residents 
of the District of Columbia, you should be able to vote ``no.'' If an 
approps bill comes to the floor that you believe is deserving of the 
support of the residents of the District of Columbia because the 
funding priorities are such, the types of initiatives that are in that 
bill are representative of the needs of the District of Columbia, you 
should be able to vote ``yes.'' The people of the District of Columbia 
don't have a vote in terms of our national budget, our national 
priorities.
  What if we say we want to support as a national priority health care 
reform? Which we do. How in the world will the residents of the 
District of Columbia vote for an appropriations to implement a health 
care reform initiative?
  So, Congresswoman Norton, it is extremely important from a funding 
perspective of our national government that you have a vote right here, 
because the tax dollars that are paid by the residents of the District 
of Columbia, they are part of this overall national budget. They are 
part of the U.S. Treasury. So, my goodness, I don't even know how I 
would feel if I did not have a vote when in fact my district, my 
constituents, are paying the taxes, I would be very angry, I would be 
very upset, each and every year.
  So I think you have turned this frustration and this anger, which it 
really should be, the whole country should be enraged about this, into 
a very positive struggle for civil and for human rights. And that is 
really, basically, what this is.
  Finally, let me just say, this country continues to promote democracy 
and democratic movements all around the world. We need to start 
promoting some democratic movements here in our own country, starting 
right here with providing the vote for the residents of the District of 
Columbia, and I think that the polling data shows that the American 
people want that.
  So I am optimistic. As I said earlier, I think we have made a quantum 
leap and there is a new environment. People want change, and I think 
this is basic change. This is fundamental to our democracy, and I 
applaud you again for working day and night to make sure the democratic 
ideals are realized through this vote.
  Ms. NORTON. That is why I have been so pleased, that even Members who 
are far more conservative than I voted for this bill on the Republican 
side and on the Democratic side. On the Democratic side, we had many 
Members who come from districts, we are so pleased to have them, 
because we are the signature of big tent political party ever since 
FDR, and the unity that we have shown and the many Republicans who 
voted for me does say to me that people understand

[[Page H3392]]

this vote to be just like the reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act 
of 1965 a couple years ago.
  Remember, in our country when in another part of the country almost 
nobody of color had the vote. We changed all that. So the only people 
who don't have that kind of representation here are, of all people, the 
people who live in plain sight of the Congress.
  We feel very deeply about our people who have gone to war. We talk 
about no taxation without representation. That pales beside giving your 
life for a country that doesn't think enough of you to give you even a 
vote in the people's House. This time, I dedicated the bill to an 
unknown soldier and to the first soldier who died in the Iraq war.
  The unknown soldier is a soldier who lived in the District of 
Columbia, who went to war on the war cry of ``no taxation without 
representation.'' That was the reason that you could get people to take 
up arms against the mother country, an act of treason. Imagine if they 
hadn't succeeded what would have happened to them.
  The other soldier I dedicated the bill to is one whose name I know 
very well, Army Specialist Daryl Dent, 21 years old, a graduate of 
Roosevelt High School, National Guard. When you sign up for the 
National Guard, especially at the beginning of this war, a kid who I am 
sure did not envision that he would be overseas, he went the way 
Guardsmen and reservists and enlisted men and women have always gone, 
ready to do their duty for the United States of America. I am just 
asking that we do our duty to these veterans who leave me feeling the 
same way that all of you feel, only with a deeper hole in my heart.
  I could have dedicated this to a lot of other men and women who have 
died for the District of Columbia. In World War I, this city lost--this 
is a city, now--lost more than three States. So there were three States 
that didn't lose as many men at that time as we did. World War II, more 
than four States from this one place. Korea, more than eight States. 
Vietnam War, more than 10 States. We have paid our dues. I don't think 
that can be doubted.
  One of my constituents now is a man who owns a business here and 
lives here, and he was born in Iraq. He stood with me, and I want to 
quote from him. I don't think Americans know the facts as he told them. 
His name is Andy Shallal.
  He said, ``People like me of Iraqi ancestry, and even my son who was 
born in the United States, are entitled to vote in the Iraqi 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.'' I just 
think that says it all.
  This country was so intent on making sure that Iraqis, all Iraqis, 
and even Diaspora, and people who could not even be counted in their 
Diaspora because they were in fact born here and raised here just like 
the gentlewoman and I, those people had the right to vote in the Iraqi 
elections. And that is what we in the District are told we are supposed 
to swallow. That is why I must give my thanks to Governor John Huntsman 
of Utah, who continues to support this bill strongly. If I could quote 
from him.
  ``The people of Utah have expressed outrage over the loss of one 
congressional seat since the last census. I share their outrage. I 
can't imagine,'' Governor Huntsman wrote, ``what it must be like for 
American citizens to have no representation at all for over 200 
years.''
  I want to say to the gentlelady what I believe most Americans don't 
know. The schools of the District of Columbia were integrated as a 
result of Brown versus Board of Education just as I was about to leave 
high school. The District of Columbia was one of five Brown versus 
Board of Education States, right along there with South Carolina and 
the rest of them. Why? Because the Congress of the United States saw to 
it that all public accommodations, that public schools, were indeed 
segregated. They went further. The Congress of the United States left 
these American citizens for 150 years without any mayor or city 
council. Instead, the President, with the consent of the Congress, 
appointed three commissioners. These three unelected people ruled the 
city for more than 150 years.
  There can be no doubt that while race has very little to do with this 
today, it seems to be all about partisanship. I say to my colleagues, 
my colleague who chairs the congressional black caucus, it was your 
party and mine that denied the vote to the people of the District of 
Columbia, denied any kind of self-government.

                              {time}  1700

  We were denied any kind of self-government. It was the capture of our 
party then by southern Democrats who are today gone and forgotten, 
because there is a new South, white and black, that looks very 
different because they could not conceive of a denial on race alone. Of 
course, what particularly hurts this third-generation Washingtonian is 
that for most of that time, the city was a majority white jurisdiction. 
The presence of a significant number of black people was enough to 
rally the anti-civil rights forces to keep all people from getting 
representation and from getting any right to govern themselves until 
the civil rights movement broke through in all.
  Ms. LEE of California. Would the gentlewoman yield for just 1 minute? 
I just have to say I am mesmerized listening to this history because I 
have to remember and recall the fact that when I learned of this, I was 
actually working for my predecessor, now mayor, former Congressman Ron 
Dellums. And he chaired the Committee on the District of Columbia. And 
his goal, and we used to talk about this, because we were very active 
in the home rule movement, was to, as Chair of the District Committee, 
I can always remember him saying, we have got to use this committee to 
turn over the workings of the District of Columbia to the people of the 
District of Columbia and transfer that power to the residents of the 
District of Columbia. And so this is another step. This is the next 
chapter in that effort.
  It is a shame and disgrace that in 2009 we are still here talking 
about full voting rights for the representative from the District.
  Ms. NORTON. To show you the shame on us, we were granted, for a brief 
period, a delegate, we finally got the delegate and home rule, as we 
call it, at the same time. But Madam Chair, there was a brief period 
where when in the 19th century we got the delegate and the right and a 
mayor and a city council. And that was when the Republicans came to 
power after the Civil War. Again we are talking about a city where they 
could see the reason for the disempowerment. And this, of course, is 
why so many African Americans nationally became Lincoln Republicans and 
why you would expect the Republican party to be right here with me, as 
Tom Davis and so many Republicans here, have been.
  The fact is that during Reconstruction, we had basically the same 
kind of home rule we have now. It wasn't an African American mayor. But 
that is not what we were after. We were after self-government for 
everyone here. Reconstruction ended. And I will say to my good friend 
and colleague who chairs the Black Caucus that one of the first things 
that the Democrats did in reclaiming power was not simply to 
resegregate the South. What the Democrats did was to wipe out what the 
Republicans had done with the District of Columbia. They wiped out the 
delegate. And the Democrats wiped out home rule.
  We don't have clean hands. The Democrats got religion, finally, on 
matters of equal rights long after the Republicans had it and kept 
African Americans, of course, as a constituency, because they never 
forgot it until the New Deal came. And our party was still full of 
segregationists. But the bottom line of survival and the New Deal 
brought them here.
  Madam Chair of our caucus, the thing has for me been a great ride for 
my constituents. But I tell them the truth that there is also something 
personal in this for me because I'm a third-generation Washingtonian, 
and my great-grandfather, Richard Holmes, got here shall we say the 
hard way. He walked off of a Virginia plantation where he was being 
held as a slave and got as far as the District of Columbia, and the 
Holmes roots got planted here. And so on the Holmes side, those who 
continued to live here have never experienced the same rights that 
others have seen, including rights that they saw people down South get 
just a few decades ago.

[[Page H3393]]

  So Madam Chair of our caucus, this has racial roots. But those roots 
have been dug up. They are not there anymore. All that is left is a 
partisanship that exists here in the Congress but not in the country. I 
think we are close to bringing the two together, the people with the 
Congress.
  I especially am pleased that the gentlelady from California has never 
ceased to carry this personally when she worked as Chief of Staff for 
Congressman Ron Dellums, who has gone on, as she said, to be the mayor 
of another great city, Oakland, and now is Chair of our caucus, I would 
like to say one word about the constitutional question which is raised. 
Well, I can't swear that any bill we passed is constitutional. All I 
know is we are not the ones who decide that question. We decide 
questions of right and wrong, of whether or not a bill should be passed 
or not. But I am not worried about the constitutional issue, not when 
former Court of Appeals judge Kenneth Starr appeared before us and 
testified in very scholarly testimony that the bill is constitutional. 
I am really not worried about it when Professor Viet Dinh who spent 
some years as the constitutional point man in the Justice Department, 
Attorney General for Legal Policy it is called, has been one of the 
prime constitutional advocates for the bill. I'm relying not only on 
people who usually agree with me on constitutional issues, but on 
scholars who will concede that any bill as unprecedented as this would 
raise constitutional issues. But in good faith, after more than 200 
years, who are we to continue to deny these rights when the very 
Constitution they cite has ordained an independent institution to make 
that final judgment? We will be held accountable for this judgment. And 
so they say you are not a State, so how can you possibly have the 
rights of States? There is very scholarly testimony from former 
Assistant Attorney General Dinh about how in each and every instance, 
more than half a dozen, where the notion of treating the District as a 
State has been raised, each and every time the Congress and the Supreme 
Court had said the same thing, when it comes to the Commerce Clause, 
the fact that it says commerce among the States does not mean, said the 
Congress first, and then, of course, the court, does not mean it 
doesn't apply to the District of Columbia. There is not a case which 
extracts us from that line of reasoning, both congressional reasoning 
and, of course, the reasoning of the court.
  I have to say to the gentlelady, the one that I think makes me smile 
most is article 1 section 2 clause 3 which provides that 
representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several 
States. The court said, go away from here. When it comes to paying your 
income taxes, D.C., that means you. Don't take these words so literally 
that they are meaningless. You are not outside the United States. You 
are different from the States.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
  Ms. NORTON. Since the gentleman from Georgia has come in, I hope that 
he will have a 5-minute period.

                          ____________________