[Congressional Record Volume 164, Number 126 (Thursday, July 26, 2018)]
[House]
[Pages H7713-H7716]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 STATEHOOD FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 3, 2017, the Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from the District 
of Columbia (Ms. Norton) for the remainder of the hour as the designee 
of the minority leader.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, as the House recesses, I want to call 
Members' attention to something I hope they will consider over the 
recess, this year's record attacks in the form of riders or 
undemocratic additions to the D.C. appropriation and how that makes the 
best case for statehood for the District of Columbia.
  I need to report to the House the remarkable progress we are making 
on D.C. statehood.
  We are closing in on 100 percent of Democratic House Members as 
cosponsors of the D.C. statehood bill. In the Senate, where the 
District has no representation, we have more than half of the 
Democratic Senators. Before this session is over, we are striving for 
100 percent, certainly, of Democrats in the House and even in the 
Senate as we go over to the Senate to also make the case without having 
any representation there. That is why I am so grateful to the Senators 
who have understood the importance of equality for the 700,000--
equality of citizenship, I should say--for the 700,000 American 
citizens who live in the Nation's Capital.
  In the face of that good news on statehood, you would think that 
there would be applause from the Congress, who sits in the home 
district of the District of Columbia. But recently, there have been a 
spate of undemocratic riders, that is, attempts to amend the District's 
appropriation.
  What is the District's appropriation doing here?
  That is the nub of the problem. It shouldn't be here.
  When I first came to Congress, there were actually hearings held on 
the D.C. appropriation, but I have been able to make sure that that 
doesn't happen. Indeed, Congress has no interest in the D.C. 
appropriation because it is a local budget with funds from only local 
residents. Not a penny of it is raised in this Congress.
  To be sure, we are entitled to some funds from the Congress, just 
like the States. But we are not talking about those funds. We are 
talking about the local D.C. budget passing through the House and the 
Senate for no other purpose except to see if somebody in either of 
those two bodies wants to insert undemocratic amendments, using the DC 
budget as the vehicle to do it. There are a number of ways to keep that 
from happening short of statehood, but statehood would be the end of 
it.
  I can't decide anything about New York's budget because it is New 
York's budget and it doesn't have to come here. In the same way, the 
local budget for the District of Columbia has no business here.
  It must be that Members who attempt these additions to our 
appropriation don't have enough to show to their own constituents for 
what they have accomplished during this Congress, so they look around 
for something to say, ``I passed this.''
  Well, let me be clear. I have been able to keep most of these riders 
from passing, so I don't know why they keep trying. But as long as they 
keep trying, they have got someone standing in the doorway of the House 
to keep these antidemocratic amendments not approved by the residents 
of the District of Columbia but having everything to do with the 
District of Columbia from, indeed, passing.
  And remember, this Member has a vote in committee, which may be the 
most important vote any Member can have. That is how I have gotten 
things accomplished for the District of Columbia. As it turns out, by 
the time a matter comes to the floor, the deal is done.
  But I draw your attention to the fact that I do not have the final 
vote on the House floor, and yet the D.C. budget is voted on the House 
floor.
  I do not have a vote on the House floor, although the people I 
represent are number one, per capita, in Federal taxes paid to support 
the United States of America. If anybody deserves a vote on this House 
floor, it is the residents of the District of Columbia who deserve that 
vote.
  Here is another reason why the residents of the District of Columbia 
deserve statehood or, at the very least, a vote in the House of 
Representatives, the people's House: The budget of the District of 
Columbia is larger than the budget of 12 States; the District of 
Columbia has more residents than two States.
  Here is the District of Columbia, here is Vermont, and here is 
Wyoming. Each has two Senators, but not the District of Columbia. Yet 
the District of Columbia has more residents than Vermont and more 
residents than Wyoming. You begin to see how the inequality comes up 
just in population.
  The District has a budget surplus. It is almost $2 billion. That is 
the envy of most States, that kind of large surplus, because a surplus 
means that you are not spending all your money. You are putting money 
aside, which is what, of course, is encouraged for all the States, but 
very few States have this kind of surplus.
  We are not talking about a big poor city. The per capita personal 
income of the District of Columbia is higher than the per capita income 
of the residents of any State. Its total personal income is higher than 
that of seven States. Its per capita personal consumption expenditures 
are higher than those of any State.
  Yet, each year, I have to fight abuses of home rule, as we call it, 
or self-government for the District of Columbia, using the fact that 
this budget has to pass through here in order for the District of 
Columbia to use its own budget.
  Members rush to press what we call riders--I have indicated 
amendments--to our local budget. There have been about four attempts to 
repeal the Local Budget Autonomy Act. The District passed a Budget 
Autonomy Act. The House repealed it; the Senate did not.
  The only quarrel we have with that is, although we have a Budget 
Autonomy Act, the House and the Senate continue to appropriate the 
District's budget after it has already been appropriated by the 
District of Columbia government. Nothing has ever been so redundant as 
the congressional appropriation, or shall we call it reappropriation, 
of the District's local budget.

  There is the annual repeal--and I say ``annual repeal'' because I 
have been able to keep it from being repealed altogether--of the so-
called Death with Dignity Act. This is a controversial piece of 
legislation, but eight States have this same legislation which allows a 
doctor to give a pharmaceutical to somebody who asks for it, has 6 
months to live and is in great pain.

[[Page H7714]]

  It is interesting to note that in the District of Columbia and in the 
States that have the so-called Death with Dignity Act, most people who 
have this pharmaceutical that allows them to end their own lives do not 
use it. Obviously, they are only looking for a peaceful way to die, and 
most of them decide to die without taking their own lives.
  If such a law exists in eight States, there is no reason why it 
shouldn't also exist in the District of Columbia. I have been able to 
keep that law from being repealed, and I will do it again.
  There is a third bill that, again, is annually repealed. It is called 
the Reproductive Health Nondiscrimination Act.
   Why would anybody want to repeal an act that simply says to an 
employer that you cannot penalize an employee for the form of birth 
control that an employee uses? In the first place, most employers 
shouldn't even know that private information.
  The District passed such a law, the House repeals it, and I am able 
to keep it from being repealed in the final bill every single time. But 
it gives some sense of how Members scramble for bills they don't want 
in their districts, but since it was passed in mine and since they can 
abuse their own congressional power, they simply decide to do so.
  They have not been able to repeal it, but I believe, if the polls are 
correct, the Democrats will recapture the House, and then I believe I 
will be able to dispose of these issues as well. Again, these are 
controversial, but other States have these same laws.
  There is a perennial amendment to keep the District from spending its 
own local funds on abortions for poor women. Seventeen States do that, 
no Federal funds. What other States are doing, the District should be 
able to do for our American citizens.
  Another, of course, is recreational marijuana. This is another matter 
that has been passed by almost 9 States and DC. Essentially, these 
States legalized small amounts of marijuana. In the District, it is 2 
ounces.

                              {time}  1300

  The House stumbled to try to repeal the District's marijuana law. It 
was unsuccessful, so the District still has legal marijuana up to 2 
ounces.
  However, it can't regulate marijuana, and it can't monetize it. If 
you go to the States that have legal marijuana, they sell it, they tax 
it. There is no reason why the District of Columbia shouldn't be able 
to do the same thing.
  This year, there are some additional riders. Representative Gary 
Palmer, a Republican from Alabama, needs to mind his own business. 
Instead, he has filed amendments to keep the District from using its 
local funds to pass something that you would think would not even come 
to his attention. It is an initiative that would raise the minimum wage 
so that everybody in the District of Columbia earns the same minimum 
wage and so that so-called tipped workers do not live on tips alone but 
on a basic wage in addition to whatever tips they get.
  The industry doesn't like this, but if you are a tipped worker, you 
may well like it. Actually, it didn't pass overwhelmingly, but it 
passed in the District. The District Council does have the right to 
overturn a referendum or an initiative. It may overturn this on its 
own, but here comes Congress rushing in to overturn the Tip Minimum 
Wage Act.
  I had to chuckle at another amendment that was filed, I think also by 
Mr. Palmer, who definitely needs more work to do because he keeps 
meddling in our business. This rider goes after the District's bill 
that mandates health insurance.
  What this is about is Republican Members smarting at the notion that 
they have not been able to overturn the Affordable Care Act. They have 
not been able to do that here either. It turns out that the Affordable 
Care Act is, I believe, the most popular piece of recent legislation on 
the books today. It has gotten more and more popular the more the House 
and the Senate have tried to cripple it.
  Local jurisdictions have their own version, and the District says, 
yes, you must have health insurance.
  Why do they say people must have health insurance? Why did the 
Affordable Care Act say that? It is the basic law of insurance. If you 
spread the risk and spread the cost, then, of course, everybody's 
insurance costs less. So it is the ABCs of insurance. That is why you 
have jurisdictions continuing to mandate what the Affordable Care Act 
did.
  It is interesting to note that the Senate is not going home for the 
August recess, and the reason it is not going home is it is trying to 
get through a new addition to the Supreme Court.
  By the way, that proposed member is Brett Kavanaugh, who happens to 
sit on the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals. As it turns 
out, the Democrats in the Senate have one-upped this decision to stay 
for the August recess because the Democrats are using that time to 
speak and to press the Affordable Care Act, which is so popular and 
will help them, I am sure, in the November elections.
  Madam Speaker, may I ask what my remaining time is.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Handel). The gentlewoman from the 
District of Columbia has 32 minutes remaining.
  Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, it doesn't stop in the House. It goes over 
to the Senate.
  But one of the reasons I have been able to get these antidemocratic 
riders off is that the Senate has helped me even though the Senate is 
controlled by Republicans, not Democrats. And the reason I think the 
Senate has been more open is that, unlike the polarized House--and, 
sure, the Senate is polarized as well--the Senate, by its very nature, 
represents a broader cross-section of the American people and, thus, 
represent Republicans and Democrats and has to think about how far it 
wants to go with making itself a target by trying to overturn somebody 
else's legislation. So we are able to get most of these antidemocratic 
riders off there.
  I note that Senator Ted Cruz also needs to devote more attention to 
his own constituents from Texas because, in the Senate, he is trying to 
do what Representative Palmer is doing: to get rid of the District's 
healthcare mandate.
  Again, Senator Cruz represents a large State. He is not doing his 
best for them as long as he is meddling in the business of another 
city, another jurisdiction, the District of Columbia.
  It is the height of hypocrisy for Republicans to spend so much time 
trying to overturn the laws of the District of Columbia because local 
control is a core belief of Republicans in the House and the Senate. We 
are going to hold them to that core belief when it comes to matters 
affecting the District of Columbia.
  Meddling in the business of the District of Columbia can and has cost 
the District of Columbia actual dollars. The District of Columbia just 
had another bond market report and an upgrade of its rating by one of 
them to AAA. Yet one of the bond markets, Standard & Poor's, said: 
``[W]e continue to have concerns about the role of the federal 
government in future District budgets. We view this as an ongoing . . . 
factor that has a negative effect on the District's finances and as a 
slight offset to the District's otherwise very strong management 
practices . . .''
  What S&P is saying is, essentially, there is an unknown here. There 
is an actor. It is the Congress of the United States meddling in the 
business of the District of Columbia. So it is hard to judge the 
District of Columbia as long as somebody can come from left or right 
field and try to change parts of its business.
  Essentially, what you have is S&P and other bond markets calling for 
Congress to let the District be the District so it can be judged by 
what the District alone does. Look at what they say when the bond 
markets look at what the District alone does. Look at what the bond 
markets say.
  Let's look at Moody's, who has just given the District a AAA rating, 
given its bonds a AAA rating: ``The dynamism of the District's economy 
has led to the largest population in 40 years and strong growth in the 
tax base. Financial governance is exemplary. Reserves are robust . . 
.''
  I want to ask Members of this body how many of you have had reports 
like that on your own jurisdiction.
  Moody's goes on to say: ``The District of Columbia, the nation's 
capital, is

[[Page H7715]]

small but wealthy. Its population would rank 48th among States . . .'' 
That is what you see with this graph. [B]ut its per capita income is 
higher. I repeat, the District's ``per capita income is higher than all 
50 States, and its GDP is greater than 17 States.''
  What more do you want from the District of Columbia when you get that 
kind of objective report on its finances?
  The fact is that only eight big cities--the District of Columbia and 
seven others--have AAA bond ratings. Only 22 of the States have AAA 
bond ratings.
  Again, I repeat, what more do you want from us when we have excelled, 
outdone the great cities of the United States, outdone most of the 
States in our fiscal prudence? Such an outsized performance, if 
anything, should encourage the Congress to, at the very least, 
recognize the District's budget autonomy law.
  Here I am not talking about statehood. I am talking about the 
District's budget, having it stay in the District, go into effect 
immediately and not come as a pass-through to this body, because, by 
coming here, it gets harmed. It adds costs to the budget because of the 
uncertainty of having another actor, the federal government, who could 
do anything to your local budget.
  The bond markets have made the best case for recognizing the 
District's budget autonomy law, instead of another passage of the 
appropriation after the District has already passed it and getting our 
budget here only to see if Members can attach undemocratic amendments, 
and get them passed that way.
  The fact is, if there were budget autonomy--here, I am not talking 
about statehood, but only the budget of the District, like the budget 
of every other city and State--and the budget didn't come to the 
Congress--if the District had that, it would lower our taxes even more, 
and the District would need even less in Federal funds.
  I have already gotten the rating agencies to credit a provision I got 
in the budget keeping the District from being shut down if the Federal 
Government shuts down. That is what I said: shut down.
  The Congress often acts like a child. Sometimes they disagree with 
the President; sometimes they disagree among themselves; and the whole 
darn thing just closes down, leaving everybody out there on his own 
with no budget; and then the House and the Senate go at one another 
until they finally get something done.
  I have annually gotten into the D.C. appropriation a provision 
exempting the District from the threat of the shutdown.
  So here is the irony: If the Federal Government shuts down or if 
doesn't pass a budget on time, the District's budget goes into effect; 
and it goes into effect at next year's budget levels, while with the 
Federal Government, the most that will happen is that it will stay open 
on the prior year's budget.
  We are grateful that the bond markets have recognized the District as 
one of the most fiscally responsible jurisdictions in the United 
States. We are grateful that they have pointed out who the culprit is 
if we want to get an even higher rating than we share with seven States 
who have AAA ratings.
  Remember, Madam Speaker, nobody in this body is interested in the 
D.C. budget. That is how I have been able to make sure that nothing 
happens on the District budget. And since there is no interest in it, 
it simply shouldn't be here.
  The District budget is just like a number of other items here from 
the District that I have been able to keep from being overturned.

                              {time}  1315

  An example is the District's gun laws. It may be the best example. 
Every year, I keep the Congress from passing bills to overturn the 
District's gun laws. They are very extreme. I do it in the House, and I 
do it in the Senate, even though I am not in the Senate, and there is 
nobody from the District of Columbia in the Senate.
  Senator Marco Rubio from the State of Florida has been the chief 
culprit of late. Members vary as to who tries to wipe out all the 
District's gun laws. You would think that Senator Marco Rubio would be 
the last to do that, because Parkland, Florida youngsters have become 
the leading advocates for gun safety control in the United States and 
are making some considerable headway.
  But, actually, Senator Rubio started his effort to wipe out the 
District's gun laws before the Parkland tragedy. And why did he do it? 
What does he care about the District? He doesn't care about the 
District. He cares about his NRA rating.
  Apparently, he had a B-plus NRA rating, National Rifle Association 
rating. Within minutes of putting in a bill to eliminate all the gun 
safety laws of the District of Columbia, the NRA raised his rating from 
a B-plus to an A.
  Do you want to know why I am mad? Why I come to this House floor to 
say get off our backs and treat us like every other jurisdiction? That 
is a perfect example: using the District of Columbia to get an 
increased NRA rating.
  Over here, it is the Representative from Virginia (Mr. Garrett) who 
partners with Senator Rubio. Neither of them has been successful. Why 
should I have to fight these two Members at all about an entirely local 
matter?
  Mr. Speaker, I have not asked only for statehood. I understand the 
House and the Senate are essentially incremental bodies. So I have 
bills that would simply give the District many of the elements of 
statehood.
  An example would be a local prosecutor. What is the United States 
Attorney for the District of Columbia doing prosecuting local crimes? 
That is what he does. In fact, more than 90 percent of the business of 
this U.S. attorney doesn't have anything to do with Federal matters.
  Again, this is a holdover from before the District had what we call 
home rule, and it was 45 years ago that the District was given the 
right to govern itself.
  But that, the Congress could give the District, and then the District 
would choose its own local DA.
  There are other examples. the President offers clemency, and that 
means it never happens for people in prison in the District. That is a 
State function. The District knows more about its own local residents 
who are incarcerated than any president. That is the kind of matter 
that should go to the District of Columbia.
  I cite these examples because they are not statehood. They are just 
ordinary home rule jurisdiction, ordinary democracy.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to close with the most poignant examples of 
denial of democracy to District of Columbia's residents. Mr. Speaker, 
the most poignant of the reasons residents resent the denial of equal 
treatment to their own jurisdiction has to do with the sacrifices that 
District of Columbia residents have made in every war since the 
creation of the republic.
  The District is one of the oldest cities in the United States. It was 
created by the Founders. District residents fought in the war that 
created the United States of America. Thus, the city stands as a living 
contradiction to what the Framers fought for: ``No taxation without 
representation.''
  Residents of the District are not only taxed without representation 
in the House and the Senate, they are taxed at a higher rate than other 
Americans--they are number one per capita in Federal taxes paid to 
support the Government of the United States.
  When you consider the sacrifices that our residents have made, one 
would wonder how they could possibly be denied equal treatment in their 
own country. One way to understand the sacrifices the District has made 
is to look at those sacrifices in times of war: World War I, more 
District casualties than three States; World War II, more District 
casualties than four States--understand that we are talking about a 
city, and these are more casualties than in the States; Korean war, 
more casualties than in eight States of the United States--this city, 
more casualties than in eight States; finally, the very worst of the 
casualties, the Vietnam war, more casualties than in 10 States.
  There is not an American who wouldn't say that, with those sacrifices 
and with federal taxes paid at a higher rate than any others are taxed, 
surely the 700,000 residents who live in our Nation's Capital have more 
than paid their dues.

[[Page H7716]]

  So I have come to make that case. It is not a difficult case to make. 
At the heart of the case are the sacrifices in lives for their country. 
Not only did they not have the vote, but, to date, as I speak, those 
who are serving their country in Afghanistan and around the world are 
doing so without equality with other Americans, with the votes in the 
House and the Senate.
  If you were to ask the American people, I have no doubt where they 
would be on the issues I have spoken about this afternoon. The 
Democrats are doing very well in the House and the Senate. I will ask 
for a vote for the District in this House, if in fact Democrats take 
control of the House of Representatives, as it seems they will.
  This is a matter that should be bipartisan, but my party does not 
control the House. There is no chance of getting the kind of equality 
that our country stands for unless my party gets control of the House. 
Therefore, I hope all will understand that is why I am working hard to 
see a change in who controls the House of Representatives and the 
Senate of the United States.
  The District residents, those who died, those who live here today, 
have more than earned their right to be treated as equal American 
citizens.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________