[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 161 (2015), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 5082-5085]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




             D.C. EMANCIPATION DAY: INJUSTICE AND PROGRESS

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 6, 2015, the Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from the District 
of Columbia (Ms. Norton) for 30 minutes.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, in advance of D.C. Emancipation Day, and I 
know that it is not a national holiday, but it is, yes, a holiday in 
the District of Columbia. It commemorates the day when the slaves in 
the District of Columbia were liberated by the Congress and Abraham 
Lincoln 9 months before the national Emancipation Proclamation.
  Astonishingly, 150 years later, full freedom and equal citizenship 
have not yet come to the residents of the District of Columbia.
  You don't have to be the Holmes family in the District of Columbia, 
who have lived three generations here paying taxes without 
representation. Indeed, my great grandfather, Richard Holmes, was a 
runaway slave from Virginia. When Lincoln and Congress freed the slaves 
150 years ago, Richard Holmes was not freed, because he was a runaway 
slave rather than a slave whose master lived in the District of 
Columbia. So he had to wait the 9 months for the Emancipation 
Proclamation, but he was working on the streets of Washington like a 
free man as they were building Washington. He became free, but his 
great granddaughter--grateful for all that my family has done--cannot 
say that we are free today.
  The greater shock will not come from those of us who are longtime 
residents. It will come from those who moved to D.C. yesterday, from 
those who are not three generations here but who are one day here, when 
they find that their rights are gone, that the rights they had in every 
State of the Union have vanished except for a few.
  They can vote for President, but they can't vote for whoever 
represents them on this House floor. They have Congress interfering 
with their local business. This will astonish the average American, and 
most Americans have no idea this is the case for the 650,000 residents 
who live in their Nation's Capital. People have taken for granted that 
the vote that is emblematic of statehood would follow them--I don't 
know--from Utah and California, from Alaska and Maine to the District 
of Columbia when they moved here. They had no idea that their local 
budget, for example, which is a budget raised exclusively in the 
District of Columbia, would have the big foot of the Federal Government 
kicking it around--indeed, that it would even be in the Congress.
  Emancipation Day in the District of Columbia is not a mere 
commemoration. It is not like George Washington's birthday. It is alive 
with a fervor against this rank injustice that I have begun to speak 
about this evening. I am going to speak about the injustice, but I am 
also going to talk about progress because we have been encouraged--we 
who live in the District of Columbia--and the many allies we have to 
fight as we begin to make some substantial headway.

                              {time}  1915

  Most Americans--indeed, all other Americans--obtain their full rights 
by going through a citizenship ceremony or by simply being born here. 
All you have to do to have your full citizenship rights, when all is 
said and done, is to pay taxes. You don't even have to have 
participated in all of the Nation's wars or any of the Nation's wars 
the way the residents of the District of Columbia have done ever since 
the first war, the war that created the United States of America. You 
don't have to have paid all the taxes ever since you have been in the 
Union of states the way the District of Columbia residents have.
  The reason you don't is that the statehood simply comes with where 
you live, and that is what has not happened to us. Where do we live? We 
are proud to live in the Nation's Capital. There, you would expect 
rights to flourish first and foremost.
  When I spoke of not having the vote, do understand I have the vote in 
committee, and I am very grateful for that vote because it does allow 
me to carry home some important benefits to the District of Columbia, 
but what I don't have is the right to come to this floor and have the 
same vote that each of my colleagues has on business that affects the 
District of Columbia and the Nation.
  Even matters that affect the District of Columbia, our own budget 
comes to Congress; and every other Member, who had nothing to do with 
raising the funds, gets to vote on that budget, but not the Member 
elected by the people of the District of Columbia. How painful it is 
that I have been able to speak on a number of wars that our country has 
entered, most recently Afghanistan and Iraq, have gone to Arlington to 
bury those killed, residents killed in those wars who went to war, 
secured the vote for residents of Afghanistan and Iraq but came home to 
find no vote or, in the case of those who died, did not come home at 
all.

[[Page 5083]]

  And yet I am in a Republican House where ``federalism'' is the 
byword. Indeed, I understand why, because nothing was more important to 
the Founders than their own local laws and keeping the Federal 
Government, which was then kept deliberately weak, out of their 
affairs. What mattered to them was what was most local. So the very 
notion of interfering with the local business of a jurisdiction of any 
kind was unthinkable for our Framers.
  It is the very meaning of statehood, this localism, this thing that 
says that there is territory and there are laws, there are habits for 
you only. They will differ vastly across the country, but that is your 
prerogative; that is the prerogative of statehood. That is why the 
residents of the District of Columbia seek to become the 51st State, 
and know it will happen. Perhaps later than sooner, but it must happen 
because of the principles I have begun to describe.
  It must happen because we have been called out and continue to be 
called out internationally, because we have signed treaties where we 
are now in violation. We are in violation of a treaty we signed in 
1977, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The 
Human Rights Committee, the U.N. Human Rights Committee, has called us 
out once again as it did in 2006, and they recited the reason for it.
  The Human Rights Committee, looking at what has been done or, as it 
turns out, not been done said, and I am quoting them, the United 
Nations delegation to the U.N. ``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.''
  Then they cited article 2, and I won't quote from it entirely, but it 
says that the treaty we signed requires that we ``adopt such laws or 
other measures as may be necessary to give effect to the rights 
recognized in the present covenant.''
  What are those rights? In this covenant, in this treaty that we the 
United States has signed, says all persons are ``equal under the law 
and are entitled, without 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,'' and then they name the grounds. Here 
are the grounds: ``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 the District of Columbia and 
its residents--``or other status.'' What is our other status? That we 
reside in our own Nation's Capital--and for that reason, and that 
reason alone, are denied equal rights with other citizens of the United 
States of America.
  Worse than being denied your rights is getting a right and then 
having it taken from you. Even that has happened to the residents of 
the District of Columbia. Shortly after I was elected to Congress, I 
wrote a memo indicating that since, as a Delegate, by rules of the 
House, I could vote in the Committee of the Whole, it followed that I 
should be able to vote in the Committee of the Whole when it meets on 
this floor. The Democrats were in control, but even they said: We must 
send this to outside counsel. Nobody from the District of Columbia has 
ever voted on this floor.
  They sent it to outside counsel. They said that the District of 
Columbia votes by rule in committee, so by rule, yes, if the majority 
pass a rule, the District can vote on the floor of the House of 
Representatives. That rule was passed. Every time that the Democrats 
are in power, I get to vote on the House floor--by no means on all 
business, but certainly on business in the Committee of the Whole, and 
some of that really affects and is important to the District of 
Columbia. It is not the whole and complete vote. It is not what we are 
entitled to.
  Why would anyone want to take it from us when we pay taxes without 
representation? But sure enough, when my good friends on the other side 
of the aisle write their rules, they write the District right out of 
the rules and take from us a vote that we have actually exercised on 
the House floor with the concurrence of the Federal courts of the 
United States. Right after we were granted that right and after I began 
to exercise it, my Republican colleagues actually sued the Congress for 
giving the District the vote in the Committee of the Whole. The 
District Court said: It is your discretion. What Congress has done is 
legal; the matter is legal and constitutional. And the Congress--the 
Republicans, not the Congress, took their suit against the Congress, 
the Democratic Congress to the Court of Appeals. The Court of Appeals, 
the Federal Court of Appeals said: Yes, what Congress has done is 
legal, in its discretion and constitutional. And I proceeded to vote.
  I think it is probably unheard of except in coups or dictatorships to 
snatch a vote or a right that someone once held, but that is what 
happened to the residents of the District of Columbia. No wonder there 
is rage in the city about such treatment.
  Now, you might say: Well, there surely must be some reason why the 
residents of the District of Columbia don't have the vote. No one has 
found any such a reason yet. They have only found reasons why we should 
have the vote.
  Some will say: Oh, you are much too small to have the vote. After 
all, you are only a city. Well, a city is whatever you call it, so is a 
State. But if the size determines that you have the vote, then Vermont 
and Wyoming should not have the vote because we have more population 
than either of those two States.
  Vermont and Wyoming are not alone. Those are the states where we have 
notably more residents than they have. We have more than 650,000 
residents. But there are more than half a dozen States that are in the 
same range of population as the District of Columbia and have a 
Representative--no more than one, just like the District of Columbia 
has one in this House--and two Senators. The District of Columbia has 
no Senators.
  Who would say that that is fair?
  And yet if you look down to the states with comparable population, 
the first tier that are almost exactly like the District of Columbia: 
North Dakota, Alaska, Vermont, of course, and Wyoming. And then there 
is another tier that are above us but very close in population: 
Delaware and South Dakota. I want them to keep their vote, and I want 
them to keep their two Senators. All we are asking is that District of 
Columbia residents be treated equally.
  I have been speaking all week in preparation for Emancipation Day 
tomorrow, April 16. I began with two important, what I call debt-paid, 
paid-in-full obligations of citizenship. The first is participation in 
the armed services--although we know nobody is required to participate 
in the armed services today--and the second is payment of taxes. Pretty 
much today, April 15, if you have earned enough money, even a 
relatively small amount, you are going to have to pay some taxes.
  It is hard to say which of those is most important. They all, of 
course, surround citizenship. Both support our government: those who go 
to the service, those who pay their taxes. I won't say what is most 
important, but I started with military service for a reason: anyone who 
enters the service, especially today, does so voluntarily, knowing she 
is taking personal risk of her life.
  Service in the armed services is so important to our country that 
undocumented immigrants have been granted citizenship by serving in the 
Armed Forces, and that has now been formalized. Young people who grew 
up in the United States but came with their parents as undocumented 
children without any legal status have always joined the armed 
services. In recognition of that, our country has now said that, at 
least for those who have special language or medical skills, if they 
join the armed services, after 6 months they can apply for citizenship.
  Just consider the premium that we are placing on service in the Armed 
Forces, a premium that is more than

[[Page 5084]]

deserved, and yet there is no cognizance taken of the fact that our 
residents who lived in the District of Columbia since its formation in 
1801 have fought and died in the armed services; and even before that 
they fought in the Revolutionary War that led to the formal formation 
of the United States and the District of Columbia. So by any measure, 
District of Columbia residents have gone beyond the call of duty in 
serving their country and earned the right--earned, earned painfully, 
with their lives--the full right to be treated as full and equal 
citizens of a State.

                              {time}  1930

  This chart shows how the right to be the 51st State has been 
tragically earned. In World War I, there were more casualties from 
D.C., this small territory than three States; in World War II, there 
were more casualties from the District of Columbia than from four 
States--and it only rises.
  In the Korean war, there were more casualties than from eight States 
of the union, almost all of which were larger in size and had more 
population. The Vietnam war, where we have the very most casualties--
more men and women were killed than from 10 States in the Union.
  There is a very special part of our service in the Armed Forces. The 
District of Columbia was not a majority African American city until 
almost 1960. Today, it really is not a majority African American city. 
I grew up in a city that was largely White.
  During that period, for most of its history, the District of Columbia 
was a segregated city, segregated by the Congress of the United States. 
I went to segregated schools, for example; yet look at how residents of 
the District of Columbia who had no vote of any kind at that time, had 
no home rule government. The city was run by three commissioners--no 
mayor, no city council, nobody to go to who was responsible to you--yet 
look what its residents did.
  The first African American Army 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.
  The first African American Naval Academy graduate was born right here 
in the District of Columbia. The first African American Air Force 
Academy graduate was born in this city. The roster continues into 
recent years, where we had the first Deputy Commandant of the U.S. 
Coast Guard and the first African American female aviator in the D.C. 
National Guard.
  Don't tell me District residents haven't paid their dues and then 
some; yet I have sometimes had some difficulty getting our armed 
services personnel duly recognized.
  Perhaps the most poignant was a mother who wrote me--and I thank this 
Congress for helping me to correct this injustice. It may seem small to 
you, but it didn't seem small to my constituents. They are the parents 
of Jonathan Matthew Rucker, a D.C. native high school graduate who then 
proudly joined the Navy, instead of going to college.
  He graduated from Naval Station Great Lakes. His parents went to see 
him graduate. Tomi Rucker, his mother, is an investigator with the D.C. 
Fire and EMS Department. His father, Michael Linwood Boyd, is a 
sergeant in the Special Operations Division of the D.C. police 
department.
  They enjoyed attending their son's graduation from naval boot camp. 
The Navy called out the names. As the name of each young person was 
called, the Navy raised the state flag. The name of Jonathan Matthew 
Rucker was called, and no flag was raised. Why? What in the world? What 
could they have been thinking, that we weren't a State, so the flag 
shouldn't be raised?
  Well, this Congress, controlled by my good Republican friends, was 
also amazed. I very much appreciate that they passed my bill that was 
attached to the Defense authorization bill that the Armed Forces now 
must display the D.C. flag--and we learned only with the visibility of 
this incident that there were D.C. veterans who had come home from wars 
and, every flag was raised, except the D.C. flag.
  I must tell you, I think it was because D.C. is not a State, for 
God's sake. At some point, you just have to draw the line. Just make us 
a State, and maybe those kinds of things won't happen.
  Take our World War I memorial. Every State had a World War I 
memorial--paid for by people in that State--so was ours, 100 percent. 
Indeed, they collected money even from schoolchildren.
  There has actually been an attempt to take our D.C. War Memorial--
because it happens to be located on the Mall--and convert it into a 
national World War I memorial because there is no World War I memorial 
on the Mall.
  Well, sorry about that, but we paid--not only in treasure, but in the 
lives of almost 500 D.C. residents. I thank my Republican colleagues 
for working with me to maintain the D.C. War Memorial. The D.C. World 
War I memorial had become, really, a war memorial for all D.C. 
veterans.
  What I did was to work closely with my colleagues so that we would 
get a real World War I memorial that could be respected. That means 
there is going to be a wholesale redevelopment of the Pershing Park, 
which many always considered a World War I memorial.
  It is not located on the Mall, but it is located right in a prime 
location on Pennsylvania Avenue, near the White House, and we were able 
to come to a compromise, the kind of compromise that makes the world go 
round and makes this House look good.
  Today, of course, was tax day, and my Republican colleagues came 
forward with any number of bills. Some were worthy bills, bipartisan 
bills. Some were nonsense. Some were just straight out demagoguery. My 
colleagues are very concerned with tax cuts, even bills this week.
  Many will be surprised about the District of Columbia and taxes. This 
is one of the great unknown factoids of the United States. Residents of 
the District of Columbia, per capita, per resident, pay the highest 
taxes in the United States, Federal taxes, more than any Americans.
  If you are in Mississippi, you pay the lowest per capita, at just 
about $4,000, compared to our $12,000. If you go to my Web site, you 
will find out where your State stands.
  I will go down the top 10: the District of Columbia, Connecticut, New 
Jersey, Massachusetts--this is in rank order, by the way--Maryland, New 
York, Nevada, Wyoming, New Hampshire, and California.
  The largest States--let's take California and New York--they each pay 
in the $8,000 range. D.C. is $12,000 per capita. This is all per 
resident.
  You say: well, look at the small States; they must be like you.
  No, they are not. Small States, like Rhode Island--we are $12,000, 
and they are at $7,000. We are at $12,000 per resident, and in Vermont, 
they are $6,000. North Dakota is at $6,000. Montana is at $5,000.
  Those are the States with small populations, so population can't be 
the cause. The cause is that the District has middle-income people, 
rich people, and, yes, because it is a big city, poor people, and when 
you add it all up, Uncle Sam gets more than his due without D.C. 
getting statehood and the rights that come with it.
  Only statehood can end this bucketload of injustice. Only statehood 
can end no vote for the Member from the District on this floor, no 
matter what the bill, even if the bill is about the District of 
Columbia. Only statehood can end the outrage of bringing the District's 
local budget for Members to vote on who have nothing to do with it and 
have contributed not one penny to it.
  Only statehood can keep this Congress from interfering with the local 
laws of our local jurisdiction, using their own preferences to overturn 
the democratic will of the legislature of the District of Columbia.
  But, it is not all terrible. We have made progress. This is a country 
that makes progress slowly, so we are not about to give up. We are 
trying to get the elements of statehood even as we try to get what we 
are entitled to.
  Budget autonomy--so that our budget won't have to come here--was not

[[Page 5085]]

only in the President's budget, but my bill for budget autonomy was in 
the Senate appropriations bill last Congress. They put it in their 
budget. That, I am afraid, did not pass because we cannot get yet the 
kind of consensus we need from the House.
  The residents of the District of Columbia want to have sole dominion 
over their own money. That is $7 billion that we raise ourselves in the 
District of Columbia, so residents put it to referendum.
  The city was sued after that referendum which passed by almost 85 
percent of the vote. Now, that is in court to see where it goes. But 
residents are not going to give up. If they can't get statehood, they 
are trying to get any part of it that they can.
  Other elements of statehood have also been introduced in the House 
and the Senate so that our local laws don't have to come here, for 
example.
  Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the time I have had on the floor for 
Emancipation Day. I want to leave you looking forward, not backward. We 
are overjoyed by making some progress.
  We know that, ultimately, the denial of rights will be seen as un-
American, especially when that denial concerns the residents of our own 
Nation's Capital.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

                          ____________________