Washington, D.C. Admission Act

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, the consent of the governed; no taxation without representation; no conscription without representation; a republican form of government for American citizens.

All of our most essential democratic principles underwrite the trajectory of American political development, which has been the admission of 37 new States since the original 13 launched the Union. All of these States were admitted by one mechanism, and one mechanism only, an act of Congress exercising congressional power under Article IV, Section 3 to admit new States.

There has never been a new State admitted by constitutional amendment. There has never been a State admission struck down by the United States Supreme Court, because the admission of new States is a political question in the juridical sense, which means it is vested exclusively in Congress to decide whether or not to admit new States. It is an exercise of the plenary power and judgment of the Congress, the people's branch. It is up to Congress to act.

The opponents of democracy for 712,000 tax-paying, draftable American citizens right here in Washington, D.C., have now focused on the 23rd Amendment as the basis of their opposition. But the 23rd Amendment is no obstacle in any way. The purpose of the 23rd Amendment was to make sure that the local population got to participate in Presidential elections. The admission of the new State vindicates that constitutional purpose.

H.R. 51 itself would immediately repeal the Federal statute that organizes the electoral college for the District of Columbia, taking care of the problem that our friends are concerned about.

So why don't they support H.R. 51?

Well, the floor leader gave the game away when he said, for him, this is all about two new progressive, liberal Democrat Senators. It is all about two new liberal Democrat Senators. They don't see taxation without representation. They don't see military service without representation, when tens of thousands of people from the Nation's Capital have served America in every war that we have ever had, going back to the Revolutionary War. They don't see governance without representation, without the consent of the governed. All that they see is two new liberal Democrat Senators.

But that cuts against everything that we believe in about American democracy. We do not deny people the right to vote based on our expectation of how they will vote. We don't disenfranchise people because we disagree with who they might elect.

I would defend with my life the right of the people of Kentucky and Arizona to send my friends here to represent them, even though I disagree with most of what they stand for, including their rejection of the rights of people from Washington, D.C. I would never disenfranchise just because of that.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, the people of Washington came to our aid on January 6. When we were being attacked by violent Fascist insurrectionists in this body, in this Chamber, in this Congress, they came to our aid. They sent hundreds of Capitol Police officers and National Guardsmen to defend us.

The people of Washington defend our democratic rights.

Will we defend theirs?

That is the question of H.R. 51. Let's pass statehood for the people of Washington.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. RASKIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairwoman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that our distinguished colleagues don't flatter themselves to think that they are the first Members of Congress who oppose other Americans' democratic rights to wrap their arguments in constitutional clothing, because this has actually been the standard in American history.

With Texas, it was said that Texas could not be admitted because it would be unconstitutional and because it was its own country, and the Constitution nowhere gives Congress the power to admit a foreign republic as a State.

It was said Hawaii and Alaska could not be admitted because they weren't contiguous.

West Virginia, everyone knew, couldn't be admitted because it used to be part of Virginia, just like Kentucky was part of Virginia.

Oklahoma, it was said, was too poor and, therefore, did not meet constitutional requisites.

Utah was too Mormon.

New Mexico was too Catholic.

And on and on and on.

So this is very much in the mainstream of partisan political opposition to vindicating the rights of American citizens.

My colleague from Virginia invites us to say, well, just give Washington, D.C., back to Maryland, thereby conceding, of course, that Congress has the power to modify the boundaries of the District of Columbia, as was established in 1847, with the retrocession of Virginia.

There is one problem with this argument, the people of Washington, D.C., haven't asked to go back to Maryland, and Maryland has not requested that the land be given back to Maryland.

Instead, what we have is American citizens exercising their rights under the Ninth Amendment to the Constitution, organizing a new State and petitioning for admission to the Union. That is how America has grown.

They have demonstrated their commitment to our democracy by defending us against violent insurrectionists on January 6. Let's show our commitment to their democratic rights.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source