----Last month I testified before Congress, in front of the House Oversight and Reform Committee, on behalf of the Council in support of H.R. 51. This is what I said:
----"Full and fair representation for the over 700,000 citizens residing in the District of Columbia is only possible through achieving statehood, and so I urge this committee and this Congress to move favorably and expeditiously on this measure.
----I want to make two fundamental points. First, it is time to recognize that the citizens of the District are citizens of the United States, with all of the responsibilities of citizenship, but they do not have the full rights of U.S. citizenship.
----We send our sons and daughters to war. We pay more in Federal taxes than 22 states. We pay more per capita than any state. There is nothing asked of citizens in the 50 states that is not asked of citizens of the District of Columbia.
----And we step up. We pay our dues, but we do not have the most important privilege of U.S. citizenship. We do not have a vote in Congress, nor do we have sovereignty like the 50 states. That is what we demand: that Congress give us what it has given to the citizens of 37 other states—full citizenship. Statehood.
----We have sought incremental gains since the 1973 Home Rule Act, but the incrementalism leaves us short. Statehood is the only way to give to our citizens locally elected representatives to enact purely local laws that will not be subject to national debates over divisive social issues. It is the only way to ensure a judicial system that is sensitive to community values.
----Statehood is the only way to give residents a full, guaranteed, and irrevocable voice in the national legislature. Statehood means the United States citizens of the District of Columbia will have the same rights and privileges enjoyed by the United States citizens of the 50 states.
----My second point is that opponents give lots of arguments against statehood, but none of them overcome the basic principle that there should be no taxation without representation. Many Americans believe, incredibly, that the District government is still an agency of the Federal Government, existing on Federal appropriations. Therefore, they say we should not have statehood.
----Well, they are wrong. As you know, we are not a Federal agency. In fact, less than 1 percent of our budget -- $136.7 million – is a discretionary federal payment. Yes, we receive formula funds, but as a proportion of our budget it is less than what other states receive. In fact, our citizens contribute more in federal taxes than 22 other states. We are a so-called “donor state.”
----Many opponents have argued that the District is not capable of governing itself in a fiscally responsible manner. Well, today the District’s financial status is the envy of jurisdictions across the country. Our fundamentals are solid. Our population is growing. Our revenues are growing (outside the pandemic). Our spending stays within budget year after year. Both our pension and other post-employment benefits funds are fully funded, using conservative actuarial assumptions. No other state -- no other state -- can boast this. For the last two years, our rainy-day reserves equaled 60 days’ operating costs, a best practice.
----Some have argued that population size is a disqualification. Population size should not be a condition predicate to democracy. Nevertheless, the District’s population is greater than that of Vermont or Wyoming and only slightly smaller than North Dakota and Alaska.
----And then some argue that retrocession is a better alternative and that it makes historical sense. This is unpopular with the citizens in both the District and Maryland. You may say ‘‘so what’’ to the citizens of the District, but you cannot say that to the citizens of Maryland. Congress cannot force retrocession on Maryland, so the idea is impractical.
----Some argue that there is too much federally-owned land in the District. That is not a reason to disenfranchise over 700,000 people. Nevertheless, as a percentage of total land, the District ranks 13th among the states. This ranks behind such states as Alaska, Arizona, Montana, and Wyoming.
----Another argument is that the Constitution intended it to be this way. I disagree. I don’t believe the Founding Fathers actually intended this. There is no evidence – in Madison’s notes or the Federalist Papers -- of discussion about disenfranchising the citizens of the Federal District.
----Rather, James Madison in Federalist No. 43 wrote that the citizens of the Federal District will have their voice in the election of the Government which is to exercise authority over them. Well, without statehood we don’t have that voice.
----Although the Constitution is a great document, it is not perfect, as evidenced by its 27 amendments. The original method for electing the President and Vice President was flawed. The method for electing Senators has changed. Civil rights has changed radically, such as the Thirteenth Amendment abolishing slavery and the Nineteenth Amendment expanding suffrage to women.
----Indeed, the issue before us is about civil rights, about the civil rights of District citizens to full citizenship. Congress can accomplish this by adopting H.R. 51.
