[Congressional Record Volume 165, Number 61 (Tuesday, April 9, 2019)]
[House]
[Pages H3198-H3200]
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, 2019, the Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from the District 
of Columbia (Ms. Norton) for 30 minutes.
  Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, a week from Tuesday will be what we call 
Emancipation Day in the District of Columbia. We use that occasion to 
point out the continued inequality of the residents who live in our 
Nation's Capital.
  Emancipation Day was the day when Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves in 
the District of Columbia. Yes, there were slaves working in the 
District of Columbia. It was considered a Southern State. He freed them 
9 months before the Emancipation Proclamation freed all slaves.
  Yet the residents of the Nation's Capital remain less free than any 
other Americans. Even without statehood, however, the people of the 
Nation's Capital have, indeed, made progress.
  Madam Speaker, I want to discuss the problems and the progress, 
especially as we come close to the point when we will bring our D.C. 
statehood bill to the floor and the House will vote whether to make the 
District the 51st State.

                              {time}  1915

  We recognize we were the last to be free because we are not free yet. 
We won't be free until the District of Columbia becomes the 51st State 
of the United States of America.
  Now, I recognize, of course, there are no slaves living in the 
District of Columbia today. But there is not a single free and equal 
citizen resident of the District of Columbia.
  I cannot help but think of the stories that were told me of my great-
grandfather, a runaway slave from Virginia. I am a third-generation 
Washingtonian. He was in the District of Columbia when Lincoln freed 
the slaves in the District of Columbia, but he was a runaway slave, so 
he was not free from slavery until 9 months later.
  His name was Richard Holmes. My family tells many stories about 
Richard Holmes. This runaway slave from the District of Columbia came 
here to work on the streets of the District of Columbia. Actually, he 
came to get away from slavery.
  I don't tell any heroic stories of Richard Holmes. I tell it the way 
it was told me. When nobody was looking, Richard Holmes just walked off 
that plantation. He found his way to the District of Columbia. There 
were not enough workers to build the streets of the District of 
Columbia, so he was able to get work on the streets building this city.
  I understand that slave owners went around the streets of the 
District of Columbia looking for their slaves. The man who owned 
Richard Holmes found him and went up to the straw boss and said: That 
is my slave. I have come to get him.
  The straw boss said: You called out a name. That man never answered 
to that name. No, he is a good worker. He is not your slave.
  That is how Richard Holmes, whose name was called out, by the slave

[[Page H3199]]

owner, ``Richard,'' remained in the District of Columbia so I could 
become Eleanor Katherine Holmes and ultimately the Member who 
represents the District.
  ``Richard,'' they called out. By not answering to his name, Richard 
Holmes must have practiced for the day when the slaveholder would come 
looking for him. That is the kind of discipline I am trying to bring to 
my work in the Congress because freedom from slavery did not give the 
residents of the District of Columbia freedom.
  Yet we celebrate Emancipation Day. We are pleased that the slaves in 
the District of Columbia were freed earlier than the Emancipation 
Proclamation, but that is only because the Federal Government 
controlled the District of Columbia, and, therefore, Abraham Lincoln 
could say whether there would be slaves in the District of Columbia.
  In a real sense, the Federal Government still has control over the 
District of Columbia as I speak because the District does not even have 
full home rule. Yes, in 1973, the District did obtain self government. 
That means that the District has a Mayor and a city council and governs 
itself, except when the Congress of the United States decides to 
intrude. And intrude, it does.
  Until Democrats captured the majority this session, I have had to 
ward off bills to eliminate all the District's gun safety laws, for 
example. Intrusion can be very dangerous.
  Of course, now that Democrats are in the majority, such a bill does 
not have any chance of getting through. But I have spent most of my 
time in the Congress in the minority, and whatever I have had to do for 
the District or get to the District, I have had to do from that perch.
  Emancipation Day for the District is, yes, a day off for the 
District, a holiday. It is just that important to us. There are 
parades, and there are celebrations. But it is not like George 
Washington's birthday, and it is not like Abraham Lincoln's birthday. 
The reason that it is a celebration in the District of Columbia is to 
remind us, the 700,000 residents who live in the District of Columbia, 
of our continuing obligation to work until the District and its 
residents are entirely free.
  In this country, even small matters take work. I know because I have 
small matters pending. But even without the vote, I have been able to 
get three bills passed in only 3 months of the Congress. What it takes 
is work. What it takes is an insistence to keep going until you secure 
what residents deserve.
  If I have any frustration, it is not with the work I must do to make 
the District the 51st State. It is with the knowledge, according to the 
polls, that most Americans think that the residents of the District of 
Columbia, their Nation's Capital, have the very same rights that they 
do. Of course, I am on this floor this evening to make sure that they 
know we do not.
  The new Members who just spoke on the floor must have been shocked 
because they would have been among the Americans who would have thought 
we had the same rights that everyone else does before they were 
elected.
  Now, I don't want to say, look, I don't have any rights, and I can't 
do anything for the District.
  You can't face your challenges that way, Madam Speaker. I do vote in 
committee as the representative of the District of Columbia. I even 
vote on the House floor.
  When I first came to Congress, I reasoned that since I could vote in 
committee, I ought to be able to vote in the Committee of the Whole. 
Sometimes we meet in the Committee of the Whole, for example, to vote 
on amendments. So I went to the Democratic Speaker. It was a Democratic 
Speaker for the first 2 years I was in Congress, Tom Foley, and I asked 
to be able to vote on the floor of the House.
  He said: Eleanor, nobody ever said the District should be able to 
vote on the floor of the House, so I will have to ask advice from 
outside counsel.
  Tom Foley sent it to outside counsel. They came back, and they said: 
Yes, in the Committee of the Whole, if Congress votes to allow her to 
vote, she should be able to vote on the House floor.
  Because there was a Democratic majority, I was given the right to 
vote on the House floor.
  I will never forget what happened afterward. My Republican friends 
then sued the House for giving me the right to vote on the House floor. 
They lost in the district court. Then they took it to the court of 
appeals, and they lost in the court of appeals. They knew better than 
to take it to the Supreme Court of the United States. So I voted on the 
House floor then, and I am voting on the House floor again.

  I only regret that I have spent most of my time in Congress in the 
minority, and I have not had that right as often as the Americans I 
represent deserve.
  The District, of course, does not even have full local control. Madam 
Speaker, you would think that my Republican colleagues would be the 
first to give them that because the bywords for Republicans are 
``federalism'' and ``local control.'' Instead, as I have indicated, 
they have spent years trying to interfere with the District's local 
control.
  The one thing that ought to guarantee Americans freedom from Federal 
interference, including the Congress of the United States, is localism. 
Time and again, I have asked my Republican colleagues to grant me that 
privilege that they think all Americans should have.
  The failure to give the District our full rights is not only a 
violation of every precept of the American creed, but a violation of 
treaties that the United States has signed. For example, in 1977, the 
United States signed the International Covenant on Civil and Political 
Rights. The Human Rights Committee, which has oversight over that 
treaty, has said that the United Nations ``remains concerned that 
residents of the District of Columbia do not enjoy full representation 
in Congress, a restriction that does not seem to be compatible with 
article 25 of the covenant,'' the covenant the United States has 
signed.
  One of the reasons it galls the residents of the District of Columbia 
not to have full rights is that, as this chart shows, the residents pay 
more Federal taxes than any of the 50 States. Take a look. Mississippi 
pays the lowest Federal taxes, but it is the District of Columbia at 
$12,000-plus per person that pays the highest.
  If you are from New York or California, Madam Speaker, if you are 
from Idaho or the other Washington, you pay fewer taxes per capita than 
the people I represent, but you have more rights than they do.
  Nothing better illustrates, I think, in a country where ``taxes'' is 
often a dirty word, the inequity of paying more taxes than Mississippi 
while Mississippi has every right the District of Columbia has. I cite 
Mississippi only because its residednts pay the lowest taxes per 
capita.
  Madam Speaker, there is a second and perhaps more important reason to 
claim our full citizenship. That, of course, is that the residents of 
your Nation's Capital have fought and died in every war, including the 
war that created the United States of America, the Revolutionary War.
  On this chart, we show the sacrifices during the 20th century when 
the United States fought major world wars. World War I, 635 D.C. 
casualties, that was more than three States. Understand, we are a city. 
We are smaller than most States, though about the size of seven States, 
but we had more casualties than three States. The Korean war, 575 D.C. 
casualties, that was more casualties than eight States. Moving on to 
World War II, we find 3,575 casualties. Note the number is going up, 
but that is more casualties than four States. Finally, the Vietnam war, 
243 D.C. casualties, that was more than 10 States.

                              {time}  1930

  It is one thing to have given your treasure; it is quite another to 
have given the lives of your citizens.
  The District, for most of its existence, has had fewer African 
Americans than White people. That is not the case today. It is about 
equal White and Black citizens.
  But, when I speak of war casualties, I am reminded of citizens who 
have especially distinguished themselves in time of war:
  The first African American general was born and raised in the 
District of Columbia;
  The first African American Air Force general was also born in the 
District of Columbia;

[[Page H3200]]

  The first African American Naval Academy graduate, born here in the 
District of Columbia; and
  The first African American Air Force Academy graduate, born in the 
District of Columbia.
  I cite these African Americans because the District was a segregated 
city as well. With segregation and no vote, you see African Americans 
distinguishing themselves in the Armed Forces of the United States, 
fighting for their country.
  So we move forward to today, and we see great progress on our 
statehood bill. Every Democratic Senator now backs the findings of H.R. 
1.
  H.R. 1 is a democracy bill. It calls for many kinds of improvements 
in democracy, and in that bill is included findings that lay out the 
case for D.C. statehood. That means that those who have voted for H.R. 
1 here in the House have also voted to approve statehood.
  The Senate has a similar bill, but with only three sections. It is 
Leader Chuck Schumer's bill. Their proposals are not as fulsome as H.R. 
1, but has three major components: restoring the Voting Rights Act; 
establishing national automatic voter registration laws; and, yes, D.C. 
statehood.
  D.C. statehood, for Democratic Senators, ranks just that high, along 
with the national voting rights bills cited. In both of our Chambers, 
Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Minority Leader Chuck Schumer have been full-
throated supporters of D.C. statehood.
  We are taking two paths to statehood, however, because so much of 
home rule remains unfinished. Most of home rule is done, but I think 
most Americans would be amazed to find out how much is not done.
  For example, the District's budget still has to come to the House of 
Representatives. We can get budget autonomy by vote of the House and 
the Senate without going all the way to statehood.
  Or, take a life-and-death matter. We are now in the midst of climate 
change with all kinds of weather we had not seen. If there are floods 
in the District of Columbia or hurricanes, the District of Columbia 
cannot call out its own D.C. National Guard. It has got to go to the 
President of the United States to ask him to call out the D.C. National 
Guard.
  For goodness' sake, by the time it goes up the chain of command, half 
of D.C. could be blown away. That is life and death. That is what every 
single State has, and D.C. can get that without statehood.
  So, while we recognize that in order to get statehood we would have a 
tough time in the Senate, we also rely on making sure that we complete 
home rule with matters having to do with the District of Columbia as 
another way to move toward getting more of our rights.
  Now, again, I don't want to leave the impression that because I don't 
have the final vote on the House floor I just can't get anything done. 
I have passed three laws--the third month of Congress, going into the 
fourth month--already, without being able to vote for those bills.
  And, I must say, I am very humbled, but I also am proud at the same 
time, that the organization that ranks Members of Congress has ranked 
me as the most effective Democrat in the Congress, and that is without 
having a vote.
  To quote them, they said: The Center defines legislative 
effectiveness as the ``proven ability to advance a Member's agenda 
items through the legislative process and into law.'' That means 
passing bills. And it went on to say that Norton's ranking is 
``noteworthy because she is a nonvoting Member.''
  I point that out because I don't want my residents, especially, to 
hear me here on the floor indicating how important statehood is to then 
say: Well, I don't guess Eleanor Holmes Norton can do anything for us 
until she finally gets statehood.
  I point out that I will be measured not by whether I got statehood. I 
may not get it. I will be measured by what I was able to get for the 
District of Columbia, whose residents voted for me to come to Congress.
  Yes, only statehood can give the District the bucket of rights, the 
full bucket it is entitled to. Only statehood can make the District 
fully equal to the residents of the States. Only statehood can mean for 
the District what it means for the smallest States, that you can have 
two Senators as well as a Member of the House.

  The District of Columbia has no Senators, so I have to do the work of 
both Houses. That is not how it is supposed to work.
  So, instead of being disheartened, I am, indeed, elated that we 
already have 202 sponsors, or cosponsors, for D.C. statehood. It takes 
218 to pass the bill.
  People rushed onto the bill because of the knowledge that there is 
something wrong that there are people in our country who do not have 
the same rights that others have, and for no good reason.
  If you were to ask people, ``Well, why not?'' today they would not be 
able to tell you. Without going into elaborate detail, I will tell you 
that it was a fluke that the District does not have full rights, a 
fluke having to do with a mishap or an incident when the Capitol was in 
Philadelphia and the troops from the Revolutionary War marched on the 
then-Capitol demanding their pensions.
  The Framers were caught flat-footed and said: Oh, my goodness. We 
better make sure that the Capitol is not part of any State, and this is 
part of Pennsylvania.
  Well, of course, we know that that was cured long ago. The District 
should not be part of any State, doesn't want to be part of any State, 
but there are plenty of armed troops to protect the District from 
people marching on the District or the Capitol for their pensions or 
any other rights.
  I am grateful to represent the District of Columbia. I am grateful 
because I love a good fight. I loved it as a kid in the civil rights 
movement. I loved it when I grew up in the District of Columbia, going 
to segregated schools and recognizing that all I had to do was get a 
good education and I could get out of that too.
  But I take it as an honor and a privilege to represent residents who, 
in each and every way, are fully equal to each and every American and 
to do all that I possibly can to make that feeling reality in the 
United States of America.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________