[Congressional Record Volume 160, Number 59 (Thursday, April 10, 2014)]
[House]
[Pages H3186-H3189]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                     DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STATEHOOD

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 3, 2013, the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. 
Norton) is recognized for 60 minutes as the designee of the minority 
leader.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, while I am waiting for my posters to arrive 
at the rostrum, I am happy to yield to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. 
Woodall).
  Mr. WOODALL. I thank the gentlelady so much for yielding.
  You are allowing me to correct a grave mistake I made earlier today. 
I had the great pleasure of carrying the RSC budget to the floor today. 
We weren't able to succeed in passing our balanced budget, but we did 
succeed in passing the Budget Committee balanced budget. I think that 
is a great success for this House, but those successes don't happen by 
themselves. They happen because we are surrounded by staffers in this 
institution who do an amazing amount of work day in and day out.
  In my case, it is Will Dunham, who is the staff director at the 
Republican Study Committee; the very able budget staffer there, Matthew 
Dickerson; and my own budget associate, Nick Myrs. Without their help, 
it would have been impossible to put that budget together, and I am so 
grateful for their commitment to this institution and to the very 
difficult work that we do.
  With that, I thank my friend very much for yielding.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, all this week I have come to the House floor 
for a very special purpose. I have offered only some of the reasons 
that the residents who live in the Nation's capital should have the 
same basic rights as other Americans. All other Americans have achieved 
these rights through statehood. We have tried to break down the 
elements of statehood into separate bills, but we have not been able to 
get those elements recognized by the Congress of the United States 
either.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I am making use of an important day coming up next 
week when Congress will be out of session. April 16 is commemorated in 
the District of Columbia because it is the day 152 years ago when 
Abraham Lincoln freed those slaves who happened to live in the Nation's 
capital 9 months before the national Emancipation Proclamation. This 
week, I have used this upcoming occasion to offer a series of remarks 
not only, of course, because of this historic occasion in our city but 
because of the meaning this occasion has to the residents of the 
Nation's Capital here and now, right this moment, not 152 years ago.
  Unlike 1862 when African Americans who happened to live in the 
Nation's Capital were deprived of freedom, in 2014, every American 
citizen of every background, of every race, of every color, of every 
religion, of every ethnic origin, of every sex is equally deprived of 
equal rights with other Americans.
  Other Americans, to have obtain full rights, need only be taxpaying 
citizens who serve in the Nation's wars. The people I represent have 
served in the Nation's wars since our very first war, the war that 
created the United States of America. And from the moment the Congress 
imposed Federal income taxes on the people of the United States, the 
people I represent have paid those taxes to support their government 
without a voting Member in this Congress, this House of 
Representatives, and with no voting Members in the Senate of the United 
States.
  I do have the vote in committee, but when matters affecting my 
district, in

[[Page H3187]]

particular, or matters affecting the United States in which my 
jurisdiction, like other Americans, is implicated, like whether to go 
to war in Iraq and Afghanistan, where our residents have served, I have 
no vote on this floor. Mind you, on this floor, Congress votes on the 
budget raised, the local budget raised in my city, not one penny of 
which has been contributed by this Congress.

                              {time}  1230

  Yet nothing is more important to Americans than the ability to pass 
your own local laws, to raise your own local money and say how it is to 
be spent without interference from the national government.
  No others who pay taxes, Federal income taxes--obviously, we pay 
local taxes--but no others who pay Federal income taxes and who have 
served in our armed forces are denied their basic rights in our 
country. This, of course, is an embarrassment to the country itself, 
but today it is far more serious. It is a violation of international 
law and a treaty that we have signed.
  Last month, the U.N. Human Rights Committee issued its report for 
2014. Its report called our country to account on the denial of 
congressional voting rights in the National Legislature for the 
residents of the District of Columbia. In other words, the United 
States Government is in violation of the International Covenant on 
Civil and Political Rights. That is the treaty that our country signed 
in 1992. The U.N. report recommended: ``Provide full voting rights for 
the residents of Washington, D.C.''
  I would venture to say that you will not find an American citizen who 
does not agree that, before the Congress can impose any burden on you, 
you ought to have the right to raise your hand ``yea'' or ``nay.''
  Moreover, this is not the first time that the United Nations has 
called our country to account. Earlier, in 2006, the Human Rights 
Committee wrote:

       ``The committee having taken note of the responses provided 
     by the delegation''--

  That means the United States delegation to the U.N.--

     heard their responses and said: ``. . . remains concerned 
     that the residents of the District of Columbia do not enjoy 
     full representation in Congress, a restriction that does not 
     seem to be compatible with article XXV of the covenant.''

  And then it cited articles II, XXV, and XXVI.
  Article II, and I won't quote from the entire article, says:

       ``Adopt such laws or other measures as may be necessary to 
     give effect to the rights recognized in the present 
     covenant.''

  That covenant is a treaty, a treaty we signed in 1992, to which we 
are, by human rights and international law, bound.
  Article XXV says that that right includes: ``the right to take part 
in the conduct of public affairs directly or through freely chosen 
representatives.''
  In our country, we do not have direct democracy. We govern through 
freely chosen representatives who get to vote on this floor. The 
residents of the District of Columbia get to choose me, but I do not 
get to vote even on matters affecting their local concerns.
  Article XXV also says: ``to have access on general terms of equality 
to public service in this country.''
  The residents have access to public service. I serve as a Member of 
Congress, but they do not have that right in terms of ``equality'' 
because I cannot vote once I become the Member chosen to exercise that 
service.
  Moreover, notably, when my party was in power, using House rules, the 
District was given the right to vote on behalf of the residents of the 
District of Columbia on matters in the so-called Committee of the 
Whole. Imagine, after getting a right that is not the full right to 
vote on most matters in this Chamber, but when my Republican colleagues 
came to power, they took even that right, the right to vote in the 
Committee of the Whole, from the people of the District of Columbia. Is 
that, my friends, ``equality,'' or is it discrimination against the 
residents of the Nation's capital?
  The report refers also to article XXVI. That is worth quoting:

       ``All persons are equal before the law and are entitled 
     without any discrimination through the equal protection of 
     the law. In this respect, the law shall prohibit any 
     discrimination and guarantee all persons equal and effective 
     protection against discrimination on any ground . . .''

  Then they name some such as race, color, sex, language, religion, 
political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, 
birth--and here is the one that applies to District of Columbia 
residents--or other status.
  What is the other status of the residents of the District of 
Columbia? Their status is that they reside in their Nation's capital, 
the only Nation in the world that denies the residents of their capital 
the same rights that other residents in their country enjoy.
  Nor is there any question that there are more than enough American 
citizens here to be granted statehood or at least equality.
  Two States of the Union that have two Senators and one Representative 
have fewer residents than the District of Columbia. Here is one, the 
lowest population in the country, Wyoming. Next is Vermont. And 
finally, with considerably more residents, almost 650,000, the District 
of Columbia.
  We are soon going to overtake a number of other States. The District 
is growing, so much that there has been an attempt to raise the so-
called Height Act, which limits how high buildings can be, because of 
the need to expand housing and office space. That attempt was turned 
back because residents were more concerned with the low-scale 
residential quality and attractiveness of their city.
  We are talking, Mr. Speaker, about 650,000 people, about the size of 
an average congressional district. Look to this chart about how rapidly 
the District is growing, on an average, more than 2 percent a year for 
more than 10 years now. In the last couple of years, it has grown by 
almost 2\1/2\ percent. Just compare that with growth in the United 
States itself. The United States population grew not by 1 percent or 2 
percent, but by 0.7 percent in the last couple of years.
  We live in one of the most rapidly growing regions in the country. 
This is called the national capital region. Maryland and Virginia are 
the closest States. And yet the District, is growing more than 2 
percent compared to Virginia, which grew only 0.9 percent, and 
Maryland, which grew only 0.7 percent.
  Mr. Speaker, during my remarks this week on the floor, this week, 
selected the two most basic obligations of Americans who have won 
statehood to test whether the District is being denied its rights. I 
began with taxes because I think people fret most about paying taxes--
and almost all of us have to pay taxes--not because taxes are more 
important.
  Who thinks taxes are more important, of course, is the Republican 
majority. They are obsessed with taxes. So you would think that they 
would want to do something about people who pay taxes but don't have 
representation. Taxes is about the only issue that the Republican 
majority cares about. But by ``taxes,'' they mean cutting taxes. Yet 
they raise taxes by imposing taxes without representation on the people 
of the District of Columbia. They are happy to take more than $3 
billion annually out of the pockets of D.C. citizens with no vote on 
whether those taxes should be raised or lowered.
  But, the most surprising fact about taxes in our country is who, 
which individuals, pay the most. Well, if I were to ask our citizens, 
to guess, they probably wouldn't say District of Columbia residents. 
Let me clarify. Of the residents of the 50 States, the residents of the 
District of Columbia pay more Federal taxes per person than the 
residents of any of the 50 States.
  This chart shows how it goes from the highest to the lowest. The 
highest in the United States at almost $12,000 per person in Federal 
taxes annually, resident by resident, live in the District of Columbia. 
The lowest per capita, per person, live in the State of Mississippi.

                              {time}  1245

  So imagine the rage--nobody wants to pay taxes--imagine the rage when 
you pay more taxes than anybody else and still don't have the vote on 
the House floor.
  Now, I haven't put all of the States on this poster because they 
could not be seen, but you see it goes from $12,000--or almost 
$12,000--down to as little as $4,000.
  The first 10 States, the top 10 States, end with California. Some of 
them, you might recognize if you had to guess

[[Page H3188]]

them. The second is Connecticut. The third is New Jersey. The 10th is 
California at about $8,000 per person. Compare that to our almost 
$12,000 per person. Understand that this doesn't have to do with the 
size of the State's population. It has to do with the amount of taxes 
per person, and regardless of population size, District residents pay 
more.
  I indicated that Vermont and Wyoming were States we exceeded in 
population. Wyoming residents pay something close to $8,000 per person 
compared to our $12,000--or almost $12,000; and Vermont, also a State 
with fewer residents than in the District of Columbia, pays about half, 
something over $6,000, compared to our almost $12,000 per person in 
taxes. Or just randomly pick out your State. Bear in mind, we are 
comparing them with D.C.'s almost $12,000 per person in Federal taxes 
that are paying to support the Government of the United States.
  Nebraska is half of that, about $6,400. Take two others that are 
close to one another in the amounts they pay, each about $6,000--
Arizona and Indiana--compared to D.C.'s $12,000.
  There is Idaho. To support the Federal Government, Idaho, which pays 
$5,440. D.C. pays something over twice what they pay.
  When you get to those which pay the least--let's take the bottom two 
States, Louisiana at $4,500 and Mississippi at $4,200--you will see 
D.C. getting to paying three times what these States pay--States which 
have Representatives and two Senators.
  Yet, Mr. Speaker, of all of the obligations, perhaps the most 
poignant is service in the Armed Forces. For the people I represent, 
there has been service in the Armed Forces ever since there has been a 
United States of America and even before, when we were fighting in a 
Revolution to create the United States of America, but that service has 
often been disproportionate to the number of residents.
  Looking to the major wars of the 20th century, you get an idea of 
what I mean. In World War I, 635 casualties, but that was more than 
three States. In World War II, now, we are getting to more in 
casualties than four States.
  By the time we got to the Korean war, the District had more 
casualties than in eight States. So we have gone from three to four, to 
Korea with eight and, finally, to Vietnam with more casualties than in 
10 States.
  The District even sometimes has had to fight to get equal respect for 
D.C. members of our Armed Forces.
  A mother wrote me when she recently went to the graduation of her son 
from boot camp at Naval Station Great Lakes. The family was there, 
glowing with honor and pride, for a son who had passed up going to 
college in order to serve in the United States Navy, so passionate was 
this kid about service.
  When each graduate stepped forward, the flag of the State was raised. 
When Seaman Jonathan Rucker stepped forward, no State flag was raised.
  That, my friends, was the last straw. I was immediately in touch with 
the White House and with the Armed Services Committees, particularly 
after veterans in the District of Columbia came forward with more 
particularly heartbreaking stories.
  For example, among the most serious were some veterans who spoke of 
no D.C. flag being displayed at ``welcome home'' ceremonies, even 
though the flags of other States were raised. I don't think anybody 
meant any disrespect to our residents serving in the Armed Forces.
  I just believe that, when you pay taxes without representation--when 
you don't have anybody in the Senate who can take care of you and when 
you have only a nonvoting Representative in the House, who votes in 
committee, but not on this floor, it is easy to be disregarded in many 
ways.
  I am very grateful to Senator Levin and the Senate Armed Services 
Committee and to this House and its Armed Services Committee for 
rectifying this serious slight to our residents, the residents who have 
given the most to their country.
  Mr. Speaker, I read an honor roll, picking out just a few of the very 
distinguished Washingtonians who have served in the Armed Forces 
because some of them stand out in the history of our country.
  This was a city which had racial segregation imposed on it by the 
Congress of the United States until the 1960s, even though, until that 
time, the majority of the population of the District of Columbia was 
not African American, but was White; yet even during that period--that 
period of segregation when African Americans were entering the armed 
services from every part of the country, the first African American 
Army general was born in this city, the first African American Air 
Force general born in this city, the first African American Naval 
Academy graduate born in this city, the first African American Air 
Force Academy graduate born in this city, and this roster continues to 
this very day.
  The first Deputy Commandant of the U.S. Coast Guard is serving as I 
speak, Vice Admiral Manson Brown, who was born in this city; and the 
first African American female aviator of the D.C. National Guard, First 
Lt. Demetria Elosie--60, is a Washingtonian.
  Mr. Speaker, we know that statehood is the only way Americans have 
gotten full and equal rights. That, of course, is why we seek 
statehood, but don't think we haven't tried to get our rights in every 
single way we could. We also have tried piece by piece.
  There are pending bills before the House and the Senate now. Some 
contain important elements of statehood--for example budget autonomy--
that would allow our budget to go into effect, a local budget after 
all, once it is passed by the local legislature, the D.C. Council.
  Because this Congress insists that we bring our local budget to this 
national body, which does not fund the District, our city was almost 
shut down this past year when the Congress shut down the Federal 
Government for 16 days.
  That was a subject of great anguish in the District of Columbia 
because we were no part of that fight. We have got a balanced budget, 
and indeed a surplus, but because we had to bring our budget here and 
because Congress had not passed a single appropriation, we got shut 
down, too--or almost.
  The mayor kept the city open, and as we were running out of 
contingent funds, the Republican majority relented and allowed the 
Federal Government to open, and therefore, the District did not have to 
close down.
  I am pleased that the administration, President Obama, has put into 
his budget language that would grant the District control over its own 
budget, allowing the local budget to go into effect as soon as the D.C. 
City Council passes the local budget. He put that same provision in his 
budget last year, and the Senate appropriators passed it.
  I thought then that D.C. budget autonomy would become law with the 
budget deal, but when the budget deal came out, it left out the section 
that would have given the residents of the District of Columbia control 
over the money they, themselves, and nobody else raises.
  I am pleased to say that there are Members of this House on both 
sides of the aisle who recognize that elementary fairness lies in 
budget autonomy. I thank Majority Leader Eric Cantor for his support 
for budget autonomy. He is the second in leadership, a Republican 
leader of this House.
  I thank Chairman Darrell Issa, who is the chairman of the committee 
with jurisdiction over matters affecting the District of Columbia, in 
that he has pressed for budget autonomy even as he pressed to keep the 
District open when the city was almost shut down.

                              {time}  1300

  The District also does not have complete control over its local laws. 
What D.C. has is a costly requirement that delays local bills for 
months before they can become effective, because they have to come to 
the Congress, although the Congress never uses this procedure called a 
``layover procedure'' to overturn city laws but finds other means to do 
so, yet continues to impose the layover requirement of bringing every 
local law here to the Congress before it becomes effective.
  I appreciate that Senator Mark Begich, who chairs the subcommittee, 
and Chairman Tom Carper, who chairs the full committee with 
jurisdiction over matters affecting the District of Columbia in the 
Senate, have introduced bills that would give the District budget and 
legislative autonomy.
  Mr. Speaker, when I came to the House in the early nineties, I was 
able to get almost two-thirds of the Democrats to vote for statehood 
for the District of Columbia. It was not enough

[[Page H3189]]

but it does show you that there were Members then and I believe people 
now who recognize the unfairness of the unequal status of D.C. 
residents I have discussed today and earlier this week.
  It became more difficult to make progress as the years went by, 
because most of my service in the Congress has been in the minority. 
Yet we are making progress.
  We were able to get the first statue representing the District of 
Columbia in the Capitol last year. The reason that is important is that 
a statue, like those of the states, was denied us because we are not 
yet a State. We have now been able to break through that with what is 
surely a symbol of statehood.
  And at the ceremony with majority and minority leadership, unveiling 
the Douglass statue, Majority Leader Reid used the occasion, with great 
enthusiasm, to indicate that he was cosponsoring the D.C. statehood 
bill.
  The reason that is important, Mr. Speaker, is that the Majority 
Leader, like the Speaker of this House, cosponsors very few bills. It 
says something about the importance of correcting unfairness to the 
District of Columbia that Majority Leader Reid not only has become a 
cosponsor of our D.C. statehood bill, one of 17 Senators, but that he 
did so with great enthusiasm and in a prominent public announcement.
  I am pleased that virtually the entire Democratic Senate leadership 
has sponsored our statehood bill.
  Mr. Speaker, Congress continues to deny the American citizens who 
live in its Nation's Capital their most basic rights. Today we have 
discussed how that is a violation of every American principle, and that 
it is even a violation of international law.
  Congress has failed to give D.C. residents even some of the rights 
associated with statehood, rights that they could give today or 
tomorrow even if they were not prepared to grant us statehood, the 
right to control our own local funds, funds we raise, funds we then 
turn over, at a cost of $12,000 per person, to support the government 
of the United States.
  Congress tyrannically overturns locally passed laws and keeps our 
local laws from going into existence until they have had an opportunity 
to look at them, except they don't. They just leave this costly, delay-
ridden requirement in place.
  Congress continues to command our taxes to support the national 
government at a higher per capita rate than the rate paid by any other 
Americans while denying D.C. residents voting representation when 
Congress passes laws concerning those taxes or concerning any other 
matter affecting our country.
  Therefore, Mr. Speaker, in the name of those who have died in the 
Nation's wars; in the name of the living veterans of our wars who are 
among the 650,000 residents of the District of Columbia today; in the 
name of D.C. residents who pay $12,000 per person, the highest per 
capita federal taxes in the country, to support the United States of 
America; in the name of millions ever since 1801, when the District of 
Columbia became the Capital, who have died in our wars without seeing 
the benefits of voting representation in the House and Senate and 
without the full and equal rights of other Americans who died alongside 
them, I ask this House to grant the residents of their Nation's Capital 
statehood. And if you fall short of statehood, at the very least, our 
residents are entitled to equal representation and to equal 
recognition, to equality under law with every other American citizen.

                          ____________________