The Robert MacNeil Report; 1059; D.C. Representation

you are for years right we can good evening from washington two hundred years ago the cry have no taxation without representation was falling and send deaf ears in the british house of commons curiously in

spite of all the smug piety is of his bi centennial year the same cries still falling on some deaf ears in the united states congress two days ago the house of representatives soundly defeated an attempt to give citizens of the district of columbia at least one congressman with about one of the arguments for the move which would require a constitutional amendment was that the nation's capital has seven hundred and sixty thousand people more than ten states they pay taxes like all other american citizens but get no vote in how their taxes are livid or spent so tonight we look at the plight of what some call the last colony why dc needs a congressman and white shouldn't have one june the special status of the district of columbia has its roots directly in the constitution which says the seat of the federal government shall be in a district outside the boundaries of any state the constitution then went on to grant congressional representation to the states but not to that district residents of the

district were also not given the right well alastair bonnett was simply that this district would be a primarily a place of residence for members of congress who obviously had their political and citizenship privileges back call a nineteen sixty one district residents were finally granted the right to vote for president and vice president with the passage of the twenty thirteen man and in nineteen seventy congress passed legislation allowing the district to elect a delegate to the house of representatives the delegate can introduce legislation be a member of committees and participate in debate but not about this move as well as two seasoned successful want to broaden the delegates power are all part of the drive for home rule in the district with a sixty year exception back in the eighteen hundred the local government of the district has been appointed by the president and congress in nineteen seventy three bc residents were given the right to elect their own maryland city council the non voting delegate dead jim mentioned who now represents washington dc in congress as walter fauntroy he was the author of a constitutional amendment which the congress defeated on tuesday by a vote of two twenty

nine to one eighty one forty five votes short of the two thirds majority needed for a constitutional amendment mr frederick is it just a matter of principle forward citizens of the nation's capital gains something tangible if you had a vote in the congress well i think that it's more than a matter of principle at it if we were accorded the same rights we see every other american has named me that i'm voting for representation in the house and in the senate i think that we might in many instances that affects the legislation that deals with the problems of the people in urban centers generally and that black people in particular with that with our votes that you are in facing the parliamentary realities you retreated didn't you tactically from the proposal for having both two senators and two congressmen is the president senses would entitle you to do trying for just one congressman at this time would that have made any tangible difference to the district well first of all

we try to one congressman's but also an amendment which would allow voting representation in the senate or by majority vote of the house senate and of course signed by the president joe biden or that was what we called buchanan substitute amendment and it would have i think open the door for us to achieve voting representation in the senate as well as a house and then and frankly as a man my colleagues tell me yeah i would do better to remain as a delegate because of how to make one calls like this at everybody ceo you know i find good reason to agree with what you've said and if i had a vote i would have probably or aborted that women's lives i don't have a voter question i can do nothing so vote for me anyhow is not true so if you became if the district of columbia became state which was another option open to the district that you would lose special grants of money that the district now

gets from the central government the dust at columbia because of its unique nature as the nation's capital does receive a federal payment the desk of columbia has fifty five percent of its taxable i had taken off the tax rolls because of the presence of the federal government we design gives you a question with precisely what red as it is now it costs money the cost to the federal presence we estimate to be now roughly three hundred and forty seven million dollars a year in the end we can have tags i cannot collect in the like i know the federal government has gives us a painting of two hundred and fifty four million dollars which means that the country is on a hundred and twenty one million dollars with the public welfare at the expense of the taxpaying residents and you can be sure what it will benefit you to go for full statehood the problem is that we all landlocked within the ten square mile area if we could expand and annexed this area the areas outside the district and in that thanks so much by an area

we would have a tax base that could suffer the loss of two and fifty four million dollars in addition to losing the taxable land that the federal government would continue to take architectural no state who is not really a viable for the unique nation's capital because we are analog one and two because the federal presence is so heavy that that taxable land would not be available to us and as i prepared candidly in various says if we want a reservation but we want the indians we want the buffalo's if you take the buffalo weighing give us a reservation the way we did with the indians say you stay along a dry land of the globe and we got as a viable at its simplest wire was the vote against two tuesday though for reasons the vote was against me i think that the first is that there are many members of the house and wear goofy air that and the fear

that they might be among those who lose their seats as result of the nineteen seventy eight he senses it's estimated that some sixteen seats will be lost to northern industrial states and moved to the southern rim and where we to reapportionment that with a dish of columbia were entitled to representation the population could become two seats which means two members might lose their seats and that caused some members not to put secondly there were those who weren't who are what you'd call the rural caucus who the principals notwithstanding the bicentennial waving of the flag notwithstanding do any more representation of the chicago as being fourteen urban type interesting and therefore a thing to put out there and there were those who weren't who wants to a partisan basis they are the republicans of you would be any more representation in the new district is being democratic representation and therefore a basic you know then finally there were those who had racist grounds and sheila who were due to ditch digger colombia is a predominately black community high where own representation would

probably increase the number of blacks in the house congressman thomas kindness as a republican while a member of the house judiciary committee and an opponent of this dc amenity voted against that and spoke against that on the floor of the house congressman do you fit in any of those four categories in your opposition or do you have a separate winter why there is at least the third category of opposition and that's based in the constitution it's basic premise being that the representation in the congress is a representation of the people of the state it's our constitution exist by reason of the state's forming together and supporting that constitution the district of columbia seems to have no leadership direction toward seeking statehood i recognize that there are some concerns about being a landlocked our population the district of columbia is such as to work exceed the population of time or other states so the statehood dozens and maybe an outlandish propositioned

all for the district of columbia and could be obtained my statutory enactment which really requires a majority of each house of congress by a signature of the president while these constitutional amendments whatever form it it required two thirds vote in each house and ratification by three quarters of the states or with the bases then of of your opposition that was just in violation of the constitution and the intent of the constitution of the intent the course one years the new constitutional changing lives of us no matter violation of the constitution would rather violation of the principles are intent and the interests of the citizens of the other states would you on what about the citizens of the district of columbia what alternatives delay the sentence is there not something that should maybe have super on poles the rights of the states that goes directly to the individual citizen yes at i think for example at the citizens of the district of columbia did at one point

have the right to vote in maryland for senators and congressman this was a short lived thing and ever since eighteen hundred now and then faced with the problem of of how to appropriately provide representation for the district of columbia i don't believe that the people in the district of columbia should be without representation in the congress in that respect this far and i agree just like that the method that was proposed twenty eleven to run through his list grew quickly is analysis of why the thing was defeated where there's and congressmen who are on your side who were afraid they might lose their seats yes i i was a little bit disturbed related to hear the cloakroom discussion on that on rail the siege is a libya and you're here just because it's next to the largest city in a seventy thousand slots were there are other folks slow like you who felt that this was a big city proposal of nominee to protect your own

interests i didn't perceive that as much as the us only other reasons are particularly into question where the seats would come from and how and in the partisan aspect was certainly there i think it's a shortsighted view because that in the future i can expect to be the republican party to attract just as many votes in the district of columbia as the democratic party on racial issue on court was not i'd don't perceive that it was an important factor but then i i can't have a way of measuring this in the debate i'm i don't believe the reasoning discussion whatsoever some cops out no one and that i think there's a factor here of people being realistic about the fact that the us is no reasonable basis for consideration the constitutional issue so we've settled that long ago i think in the constitution that is wrong john creamer is professor of constitutional law at the georgetown university law center of neuroscience to be a taxpaying resident of the district of columbia to kramer is the

constitutional position of the district of columbia clear cut no i think it's a bit ambiguous because in article one of the constitution congress has given the power to exercise exclusive legislation over this area not to exceed ten mile square and it isn't very clear what that but the members of congress or the prestige and dimension had in mind one thing is clear how he has developed and seventeen eighty three they were meeting in philadelphia and want to reduce troops from new york came down to try to collect higher wages they were drunk the constitute the pick the members of the cabinet meeting their tried to have the philadelphia john munch called out to push away the troops and philadelphia work with you is to call out the cops are now in the revolution was sympathetic to new york and then one at nasa at that point from that often took seven years the leaders of the country were convinced that they had to have a separate carry on their own really with the primary purpose of controlling the police force to protect themselves didn't the founding father's intentions and

losses on the constitution that the district should only be a haven for congress well again the justices this police protection of the congress for many rallies at least less for it wasn't what it is not entirely clear what they meant to have if the maiden of course in seventy nine when this began with anybody was done live there in fact nobody lived in the district in the form of governmental about eighteen hundred when the john adams moved in and he was the first person to take residents of white house really didn't have any conception of the seven hundred and sixty thousand people just a primal if the constitutional court was written this provision was written seventeen eighty nine seventeen nba were a hundred years later when they have no vision of what was in our career doesn't require a constitutional amendment most difficult sort of building get through to achieve what was the frontrunner wants or is there some other route well whichever mr for iran to acquire the constitutional memphis member you want to keep the bottle us and china says it really doesn't they could we could go the statehood road and lose those

two hundred and fifty million dollars and you could go the stadium roof congress has full power to admit new states by simple legislation that doesn't have to go to the states really needs a fifty point one percent majority or what about that phrase outside the boundaries of any other state does that not imply in a way that that the district was not intended in the constitution to become to be or become a state well again you can divide the police powers and give can't give congress its own police and that it does have such police power to protect them from what they were afraid of and seventeen eighty three and still allow the residents of the district of columbia who undertake activities the same with the other two hundred and fifty million americans do to have their own representation in the congress there would be no inconsistency collectively members of congress a member of the delegate is their underlying all this discussion in congress a feeling that congress really wants to keep the district for itself it just wants to be a bigger crowd control at whether an extreme case centers on the crime or mentions controlling mayor and the police against the route is turn the

mobs that might turn up at the doors of congress is there a sense of this is our city and we just want to hang onto it hidden under a big if it is certainly an era boy so you must be terribly well the law to personalize fusion about what's involved in voting representation in the the house in the senate it doesn't affect any way in any way to control that the congress has all the dish you can get two senators among the hundred and two control our takeaway controlled the congress can get to him in the house and that's a rational argument and i think it gets it gets crowded by mark blyth point as to why it is damaging don't get talked about that that doesn't get talked about but that no i don't think it the name of the congress will say that this affects our control of the district in any way let's talk about your fourth point for a moment what evidence do you have that there was a racial there is a racial under current there that because the district has such a large proportion of

black citizens residents that many congressmen would be against giving a more enhanced pat what evidence to that i'd only only yeah the rationalizations listed by rational argument i think it's a rationalization to say that bullets intention that congress will take away our control of the district that's not rational it gives a rationalization to say didn't say who when you know that the reports that that did focus on the taxable items taken away from us is it a rationalization allow me to be irrational for more than what it would be more natural for a congressman or senator from the district of columbia and then to want to be assigned to the there's difficulty committee having jurisdiction over the district of columbia and what would be more logical to assume then that her seniority would build up in some degree and

that the chairman of that committee in each house might very well become the person a person representing the district of columbia the chairman's power in a committee in the senate or in the house is considerable and if you were to ways number one the chairman could have considerable sway over the federal government of the district as they traditionally did set is as is true of texas and and then secondly would have in return a considerable effect on the deliberations with congress so i think it's it's not just a rationalization is that are completely illogical my way of thinking that this is an extraordinary legislative leverage that could be affected you do in geography or you are insured under imminent yourself that there is this undercurrent of racial feeling of contradictions to detect that i well as a first term member of the house i suppose i haven't had the opportunity to two observers as much as the others

i do think among some live a more senior members there is this feeling about the district of columbia being our thing so to speak whether racial overtones to that i don't have any direct evidence one way i suspect is probably there in some degree there was a lot of the other neither would emphasize that i think the other measures other aspects which i identified are equally as good as that responsible for some lenders outnumber the minimize effect we get two hundred and twenty nine votes for which is a leather boat beyond a majority and the twenty two ships split friendships in votes short of the two thirds vote on i think quite frankly the constitutional argument there was raised but it's it's new because it the purpose of the amenities to change the constitution that to do for the citizens of columbia with respect to legislative branch

reputation what the twenty thirteen and indeed with respect to the boat for the executive branch chief to do for this record he resents what what is done in england for the citizens of london what is done in france for the citizens of paris for what is done in bahrain for the citizens of west germany namely to give those citizens who live in the capital the federal city representation in the national legislative hurdles a unitary systems were single member constituencies are not a federal state system well now the government has a bicameral concern and it is a federal system well let's talk about some of the alternatives that become ovens last few weeks during that debate one that intrigued me the most was to proposal to make the district of columbia's smaller a small enclave it would basically embrace the water from the white house to the capitol mall of the new buildings and then take the rest of the district department the maryland and part of what the virginia is that a realistic proposal for

dumas oh it's not realistic for the state of maryland because again the services to have to be provided because the federal government as presently of the lights the streets or that new bit maintain the police protection have to be maintained that simply within the conflict an enclave but what diplomats the lobbyist all of whom moved about the city is just would be a tremendous tax rate on annapolis which is the capital of the state of maryland to pick up this book on the items to a thicket with members from maryland and when we move into a hole we said well it would be just as happy to be taken back into the tank and they said no thank you we don't want that tax burden because we don't want to lose as humans three hundred and forty seven million dollars a year because it doesn't have to be ok for carson calif that your objections when i mean if you know if you look back at the intent of the constitution writers what they wanted was an enclave a federal enclave it to meet all the objections that even a

protection that john cranmer mentioned that proposal would that that were not visit wooden at the same time of course the district of columbia or at least new state would still undoubtedly receive as the district of columbia currently there's a far greater percentage of federal money is then most states do for example the district of columbia's high up on the list now in terms of the federal money has ranch received in relation to taxes paid making a conversion a mildly while we're way down the bottom of the list may be a little bit of that feeling was present in the voting to get that very important point out that if the resolution that was before the house just may happen or tuesday had been passed and work to be ratified by the three quarters of the states it practically would have precluded statehood for the district of columbia a later date it would require complex constitutional amendment to be

passed in order to read later what you think of this proposal forgiven part of the maryland virginia walker's region has already received back its portion that is director session their current thinking thirties or early in our worldly a state of maryland perhaps might feel that there would be financial burden involved in accepting it back complete registration isnt absolutely necessary ritter session for outline purposes i think is another possibility and then the principal at one purpose might be for the sake of the voting representation for the people in that the area is one ask what would be the procedures to get that ticket thing where they tried to plant as part of the home will build two years ago and the federal government for to get it back we don't want that in his green was no longer in our sponsor them and the announcement just as technically not workable there is no way you can draw the boundary lines of constitution avenue independence avenue and then have a different set of police invest in different uniforms a whole different

set of was operating either side of veterans the metropolitan washington yes i was about to say i won't make arrests to me it's a year one of course this is a statement though question the fact is estimated forty seven million dollars talking about an american doesn't want to take on that kind of tax burden which it would have to take on if it took that it took the resignation of the buffalo ok that's one second one of the myths about a wrong was around which many of the members was affected when you see so much more that you can be in terms of federal tax pigments then we expanded taxes week we pay over a billion dollars in federal taxes of you which is a higher per capita the tax burden than all but for the state of huey secondly the figures which are recorded during the course of the debate which is taken from that the federal aid to states

document which included all of the money and as is expanded but it has to compete with the advantage of its citizens it into an example of welded into it sally's paid the sixty one thousand people who live in suburban summer now i'm working at the gravity included salaries paid to sixty a thousand live in suburban virginia who worked it included millions of hundreds of millions of dollars two organizations which had geographical addresses in washington which is the better way but they spend them around the country including percent as pain was to chronicle the panel that for the kinds of united states that none of those things benefit the people that have come here and asked it is it's going to show that we pay a fair share of texas state and local leaders to come get these immediate surrounding citizens similar asking is that we've been given the privilege of risk of building will terms finally there was thereafter there any solution to listeners it's a log jam that is going to continue or

are you disconnected try to convince more more people of your position or do you think there's an area of compromise or water world plus are literally the answer can be a constitutional amendment which the congress controls whether the district of columbia has one or two senators are you one or more representatives in the house representatives because that's what the effect of the amendment before us the other day would have been the congress could establish two senators for the district colombian then take one back or take both back later janice there are displeased with the way that a representative voted that certainly isn't an attractive proposition and is not full voting representation it lately the real answer lies within the area of a stretch to re enact the record session to the state of maryland for a particular purpose is without necessarily imposing only have the burden on the state of maryland to a financial burden to be ruled out

now i'm i just visit there is no justification for denying american citizens who they are all the responsibilities of citizenship who paid a billion dollars in federal taxes here voting representation in the legislative branch ago and i think that push that until people understand i think that there are other options for achieving that one which maybe to allow us representation house by population so that we would be at the same provisions all of it citizens of this country and the end of the album wood rubs inclusion in the senate through say the state these senate races with a question to create problems with a mythic power in the state of maryland and it's one it's an option of either not there to embrace but that's the only other way that i think we can do that the residents of the district columbia what the founding fathers fortune back to do for the thirteen colonies and that is to end the tyranny of texas without representation political accomplishment of refrigeration

tomorrow evening weeks but the people in the polls but you're only new tune no