 Good morning and welcome back to the Vermont House government operations committee. We are gathering this morning to take a first look at a proposed constitutional amendment and a couple of resolutions that have been assigned to our committee. This is an opportunity to familiarize and re familiarize ourselves with this important work and we will definitely come back to hear other perspectives on all of these things I would note for committee members as well as for folks following along that We have we've received some emails with respect to a couple of these issues from From different perspectives. So would welcome folks to Keep an eye out for those messages that are coming from or mantras. So the first thing that we are going to do is take a look at the proposed constitutional amendment and Amaran for the benefit of the committee members who are new to government operations and or new to the legislature. It would be Helpful to have you remind us the various steps in the process of amending our Vermont constitution and then maybe you can take us through the language that we are looking at here and we'll need to approve in order to amend our constitution. So welcome Amaran and thank you. Thank you Madam chair for the record Amaran average a legislative council in terms of process the process for amending the Vermont constitution is specified in chapter two section 72 of the Vermont Constitution. The Senate proposes an amendment to the Constitution. It must be approved by two thirds of the Senate. Then the house must concur in that Proposed amendment and that would happen in one biennium. Once the house concurs that proposed amendment is then referred into the next biennium. We are presently in that second biennium for this proposal. And the Senate and house must both approve the amendment. The proposed amendment to the Constitution. There cannot be any changes to the proposed amendment. During the first or second biennium. It is once it is proposed that is the proposed language that everyone must approve or disapprove. So for this proposed amendment. This was proposed by the Senate in 2019. It was concurred in by the House in 2020. It was referred into this biennium and the Senate has approved the proposed amendment. This session and now it has been. Now it is with the house where the house will determine whether to concur in the proposed amendment. At that point, if both houses approve the amendment, the proposed amendment this year, then it will go to the voters in the 2022 election. If approved by a majority of voters in the 2022 election, then the Vermont Constitution will have been amended. So that is the process. Are there any questions on process before I move into the substance? Looks like one question at least. Yep. Go right ahead. Thanks. With the voter approval. Is that a simple majority or does that also need to be a two thirds majority? Simple majority. Thank you. Representative Marouicki. Thank you. And we're just just to reflect what you said to make sure I heard you right. These are up and down votes. We cannot amend them. We cannot change any of the language in this. It's just an up or down vote. That is correct. Thank you. Representative Higley. Thank you, Madam Chair. Amarin for the listing public as well. The ballot issue, my understanding is it has, does it have to be spelled out exactly as it is in the proposal that we're looking at? That is a good question. I will need to circle back on that. My assumption would be, yes, but I don't know and I don't want to speculate. Yeah, thank you, Amarin. Yeah, that would, that would be, that would be good to know because I almost think that it, I almost think there was an issue with the previous one. In regards to, you know, 17 year olds being able to vote if they turn 18 by the time of the general election in the primary. So, and I don't know as though that wording was exactly as the wording that was proposed by us. But anyway, it would be, I think it'd be interesting to know. Thanks. You're welcome. All right, so committee members, if you can call up the language of prop two and Amarin, it shouldn't take us long to go through the wording of the proposed constitutional amendment. Certainly, I wanted to add one last process step that I forgot that is in between this going on the ballot, which is that the governor has to issue a proclamation to provide public notice of the proposed constitutional amendment. And so I wanted to make sure that that was, that that was in there. Also, in case anyone is interested, there was, there was a lot of testimony and materials when this proposal first was in the Senate in 2019, I'd be happy to provide the committee with links they can review the materials and testimony from witnesses. If that would be helpful. I think that would be helpful. Representative Behovsky. Thanks. I want to be clear. I'm not in any way suggesting this might happen. I just very much like to understand the process of things, but if it passes out of the Senate and out of the house, can the governor choose not to issue that proclamation and stop that in its tracks or is it just sort of. No, he can't. Okay. Thanks. All right, I think Ricky's hand is up from before. So let's go to the language. All right. So this is proposal to as passed by the Senate in 2019. Section one purpose. This proposal would amend the constitution of the state of Vermont to clarify that slavery and indentured servitude in any form are prohibited. This would amend article one of chapter one of the rock constitution. So that it now reads you'll see the the header of article one is changed to say slavery and indentured servitude prohibited. The second half of this first paragraph is repealed. This language previously said no person born in this country or brought from overseas ought to be pulled in by law to serve any person as a servant slave or apprentice after arriving to the age of 21 years and less bound by the person's own consent. After arriving to such age or bound by law for the payment of debts damages fines costs or the like. And so the proposal would amend this language so that it would now say that all persons are born equally free and independent and have certain natural inherent and unalienable rights amongst which are the enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring possessing and protecting property and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety. Therefore slavery and indentured servitude in any form are prohibited. Section three is the effective date the amendment set forth in section two shall become part of the Constitution of the state of Vermont. On the first Tuesday after the first Monday of November 2022 when ratified and adopted by the people of this state in accordance with provisions with the provisions of title 17 chapter 32. Any questions from committee members. So we spent some time on this in our committee in the last biennium as well. Heard from a number of witnesses just in order to understand the, the history behind this and and the implications of what it means to make this amendment to our Constitution. So you can review a lot of a lot of what we did for work on this in the 2020 session, I think it was back in January so it was pre pre YouTube streaming pre pandemic. But there are still a number of supporting documents on our committee page from the last biennium. So we'd welcome you all to to look over that material and we will come back to this in more detail. Any other questions about prop two. Go ahead representative of the faith. Thank you madam chair do we recall what the vote of this was that is a good question I am quite sure it was unanimous out of committee. But I don't recall what the vote was on the floor. Quite strong. Thank you. That was my recollection as well madam chairs. I don't recall anybody voting against it. Committee or floor representative Hooper. Thank you madam chair. I don't know what used word to use but this is not window dressing but it's filling in a gap that is perceived but in, in the context of actual law and prosecution at this point. And I'm thinking about the nail salon cases that were up here in Chittenden County. Inventured servitude if that's what it actually is is already covered by civil and criminal law, right. I am not an expert on criminal law so I am afraid I don't have an answer for you there. I, as you'll see in some of the materials from when this was reviewed previously there is case law history from the time that this section was first part of the discussion that suggests that it, it should be read as prohibiting slavery and indentured servitude. And the one of the reasons for striking the, the latter half of that paragraph is that it, it creates confusion. So, I would need to check with my legislative council counterparts in criminal law, which I can do if you would like to see what no provisions there are but my understanding is that that functionally this does not change how the state of Vermont operates. This is simply to make sure that the Constitution is clear on its face and in its wording. And no, I don't want you to go anywhere or anything. Okay. Any other questions on prop two. All right. Next we are going to reverse what's printed in our agenda in order to take up Jr h4 because we have United States shadow senator from DC with us this morning. Mr. Strauss. Thank you for joining us this morning welcome to the Vermont House government operations committee. We have not yet looked at the language of the proposed resolution urging Congress to admit Washington DC to the union as a state. But I would love to invite you to share your perspective, just to enlighten us before we look at the language. I appreciate I appreciate this opportunity Madam chair and thank you so much for the courtesy. Yesterday the US House passed the record, the bill that would admit us as a state. It's a pleasure for me to be here with you today. I have enjoyed the many times I've had a chance to visit your state particularly as the father of a recent UVM graduate. I know I'm not the only last year in person, but I love coming up to Vermont. I love the people of Vermont. And the support of the Vermont house is important one we already have your senators on the bill. So it's not necessarily as critical for that but you are one of the states that actually has fewer people than we do. So we call you out a lot for that. And nobody is suggesting that you don't deserve the rights of a state of course you do we would just like those same rights and so because of that Vermont is in a unique position to show its support for our admission. It is consistent with Democratic values and I mean small D Democratic values that Washington DC residents who pay full federal taxes serve in the military serve their country in so many ways, including civilian service. I mean one of my constituents is a doctor named Anthony Fauci, and he's certainly been doing his part, working in government and public service but most DC residents have nothing to do with the federal government. We work in the private sector. The biggest source of our economy is tech, and we just want to take our place in the union and at a time right now when we have so many problems as a nation. We really need all of us working together and so the idea that DC statehood is somehow divisive in some ways is just ludicrous. If you were to kick the violins out of the orchestra, you wouldn't be punishing the string section you'd be diminishing the quality of the music as a whole. And until our democracy has all of the instruments playing all of the voices heard, we as a nation suffer the quality of our democracy is diminished and so I hope we can count on your support. A resolution that is largely symbolic but it is an important symbol. And we would particularly because your state comes up so often in our discussions. And we mean that with all affection. Your support would be strategically important to us as we go forward so I thank you for accommodating my request. But it was important to me that I made this case to you in person, and hopefully had a chance to thank you in advance, because we look forward to you marking it up and passing it and we're happy to follow up on language if you go to a markup we're not necessarily wedded to any particular thing, but the principle of equality for all Americans is important. Thank you. Thank you so much for zooming to Vermont today to to share some conversation with us. I think it would be helpful for for you to explain a little bit about what your title means given that you do have United States senator, but shadow Senator and so help us understand what that means functionally in terms of your participation in our federal government. Thank you so much. So, shadow senator is a nickname for my position the legal name is actually United States senator for the District of Columbia, when DC residents go to the polls on election day as they did this past 2020 general election on our ballot is a position called United States senator. And the Republican Party put up a candidate. And our Green Party also put up a candidate so I ran against the nominees of two other parties in DC residents went to the polls and they voted the same way voters in every other state with a Senate election up last year did. So the differences after the election, I don't get to vote in the Senate and advocate on my constituents behalf the way Senator Leahy and Senator Sanders do. And so shadow is actually a term that originated in the British Parliament centuries ago. If you're a fan of British parliamentary trivia you'll note that there is a shadow foreign minister, a shadow chance of the sector. Essentially what happens is the opposition forms a cabinet in waiting. And the term carried over to the United States beginning with America's first shadow senators that were elected by the territory of what became Tennessee, where they elected senators and waiting who went on to advocate for California, Michigan, Minnesota have all you shadow senators in the 20th century, the territory of Alaska elected senators in advance of statehood and so it is one more thing we are doing to show that we are ready for statehood. I've had the privilege of serving since my first election in 1996. I took over for Reverend Jesse Jackson. And throughout my entire tenure of service. The senators from Vermont. Beginning with Senator Jeffords, Senator Sanders and of course, consistently Senator Leahy have always been strong advocates for the people of the District of Columbia, and we have appreciated that solidarity and friendship, and we hope we can count on it one more time. And just enlighten us for those of us who don't follow the details how many constituents do you represent. We have about 725,000 people right now in DC we don't have the exact 2020 census numbers but we have seen a huge growth in population. Over the past 10 years, there were times when we had a greater population than 10 states. But among some other statistics besides population as we pay the highest federal taxes per capita in the nation, and we, despite our small geographic size and our relatively small population size contribute more taxes in the aggregate to the federal than 22 states. And so we're certainly doing our fair share. And we just want to join the union on equal footing. And the bill the stated bill preserves a federally neutral seat of government. It will be largely where it is we all got a glimpse of what the actual border would be tragically is security fencing had to fence off that federal district for the recent inauguration but the tragic events of last year really made this much more of a priority than it ever has been. First came the coronavirus spending bills, where DC was treated like a territory and not a state. And so we only got one third of the resources that states got, but the virus didn't know we were a territory and not a state and so it didn't make us only one third is sick, or in fact, two thirds fewer people. So we had to battle it on equal footing with the without all the resources that the states got. And the old justification was that somehow if the capital was located in a state, an angry mob could interfere and threaten and disrupt the proceedings of Well, hey, that happened. Sadly on January 6, and it was DC residents through our local police department in our local National Guard troops that were the first to go and render aid to those federal authorities. We put our lives on the line for democracy that day to protect a building that doesn't even allow its elected members of Congress and senators to vote in that body. And so we hope that we can rectify that representative representative Colston has a question. Thank you madam chair, and a pleasure to meet you, Senator Strauss. My question is, how would statehood impact the function of Washington DC. How might it be different. It really would not be very different what would happen to us the biggest differences that we instead of our chief executive being called a mayor. We would have a governor. And as we've learned in the last year or so having a governor is really important. So when governors had to coordinate the Coronavirus response, getting our mayor on those calls was a challenge. A governor can call out the National Guard when they need to a governor can stop a president from calling out the National Guard when we don't want them. And so we had two dramatic problems with not having a governor last year one. Trump called out out of state guard troops to basically occupy DC during the Black Lives Matter protest. He used those troops to violently clear peaceful protest so that he could take, which now become a notorious photo op at a church. And then when we needed to get the guard out quickly to respond to the problem at the Capitol. It took hours and hours of federal bureaucratic delays as we had to go through the secretary of the army and so forth. And that's not good for anybody's public health or safety. Right now there is an area in DC called the National Capital Service area, and it is a purely federal district. Federal employees mow the lawn from the National Park Service on the National Mall. They pick up the trash. The police that patrol that area are either Park Police or Capitol Police or Secret Service. They're all paid by the federal government. And then the surrounding area, it's us the local DC pack spares that picks up the bill and supervises them. And so that is the part we're admitting is the 51st state that National Capital Service area would remain a purely federal district under the exclusive jurisdiction of Congress. And if you went to the Smithsonian, you still wouldn't have to pay us any sales tax at the gift shop or anything like that. But our government structure would remain largely intact. And all that would happen would be our non voting members would be replaced with voting members. And hopefully we could be a voice for for more Americans. And right now the Senate is is becoming, you know, less and less synonymous with really what people want if you look at where the Senate is and certain polling on national issues you can see some big discrepancies 18% of Americans are actually represented with 52 United States senators and you know DC stated would be a way to begin to sort of at least correct that imbalance. Thank you. Thank you. Representative Higley. Thank you for being here and thank you Senator Strauss for showing today and and giving us the information. I have a couple of questions I guess my understanding is that the Constitution mandates district to house the federal government so how what would happen there in that regard to that piece of the Constitution. It would remain intact and it would be followed to the letter what would be changing or the boundaries of the federal district. So if you've said there's an area right now that is purely federal, and then there's a huge part where a population greater than your state now lives. That becomes the 51st state, and the federal district gets smaller. And so, for those particularly conservatives that are odd varies advocating making government smaller and shrinking the federal bureaucracy. We want to do just that right now Congress spends a lot of time overseeing local DC affairs. Members of the Senate have to approve our local family court judges it's a waste of their time and it slows up the effectiveness of our court system. So, the federal district remains smaller but undisturbed Congress is the sovereign as they are now. Nobody lives there so there would be nobody voting in any future elections. Actually, I mean there's one family in a big public housing project we call the White House but right now the occupant votes in Delaware. So there would really be no complications with it. And that section of the Constitution said that the district couldn't exceed 10 mile square, which was an old timey way of saying 100 square miles. We shrunk that to about 70 miles. We're going to shrink it before we did that in 1846. When we returned Arlington and Alexandria back to the Commonwealth of Virginia. That was actually due to protect the slave trading ports of Alexandria it was an unfortunate example of history, but it did set a precedent that would allow us to enfranchise voters today by shrinking the seat of government to it's actually the federal And if I could another question. Has there any been any talk over the years about actually in a simpler answer of dividing it up between Maryland and Virginia. Well, nobody really sees that as a simpler answer certainly not Maryland. You know who's Republican governor is not necessarily excited about having a whole bunch more voters from out of state move into their district not the Maryland residents that want to see their senatorial representation diluted. You know Vermont I believe was originally part of another state. I don't think you guys want to go back. The state line that separated us from Maryland was carved out in 1790. That border has existed longer than most other states, including I think yours. And, and we just don't want to go back and so you could talk about the chicken and the egg and which came first but putting the egg back and the chicken is not going to be very good to the chicken and it's not going to be good to the egg. Maryland's a great place, but we don't live there. We're our own separate and distinct community. We just want the same rights as everybody else. And then if I could Senator I just want to end with a comment. As a Vermont representative I think we have a lot more important things to do here in Vermont. And not discussing an issue like this that takes a lot of time for me to investigate the pros and cons of such an issue. Again I think it's totally political. Right now with, as you know, all that's going on with the addition of possibly four members to the Supreme Court doing away with the filibuster on and on. I think it's, as you can imagine, overly political right now and I see it as a completely political move in my mind. Thank you. I mean I certainly understand that right now senators from Vermont have to spend a lot of time on issues governing the District of Columbia that they shouldn't. I would love nothing more than to be able to free up your Vermont senators to focus purely on Vermont's problems and get them out of DC's local affairs and allow your state legislature to get back to focusing on that. But I appreciate the attention that we're getting today. There are times when Americans have to come to the aid and speak up for other Americans. And I hope we can kind of need to do that but thank you for your comments representative. Thank you very much Madam Chair and thank you Senator for being here with us today. For those that are watching at home and may not have some of the background. And I know it's like some students are even watching today could you give a brief history of how DC came about. If we're looking to change more could you get a little background of how we got to where we know how to become about here. Thank you. Absolutely. The you know the story became a little bit more famous with the musical Hamilton. But as big as a fan I am of the show it left out kind of an important detail and so there was this large dispute between the the capital was originally in New York it moved to Philadelphia briefly. And when President Washington first went to Philadelphia. He became very frustrated that as he took enslaved people with him, the government of the Commonwealth of Philadelphia was going to emancipate them after six months because of the state's manumission laws. And occasionally his enslaved peoples would escape and the government of Philadelphia was not cooperative and returning what he considered his property back to him. Jefferson and Madison and and other folks who we associate with the spirit of liberty and freedom also owned enslaved peoples and so it was important to the south that the capital be located in an area that was friendly and to their idea of slavery now they don't like to talk about that a lot and we kind of gloss over it but that was one of the real primary issues. The north really needed their revolutionary war debts assumed, because they were greater in the northern states where a lot of the battles were fought and so that was the famous great compromise where George Washington got to pick the site of the capital. And to pick it right next to his farm property that plantation known as is Mount Vernon so today a land deal like that would probably have special prosecutors looking at it I don't want to insult the father of our country it was a simpler time back then. The capital building was actually built by slave labor the White House was built largely by enslaved people. And so slavery was an important part of Washington DC's early history. Interestingly enough though in the first 11 years of the capital, federal representation was part of Washington DC's existence. And so, Maryland seated a little land Virginia seated a little land. And if you lived in the Maryland part of the District of Columbia, you voted for an elected Maryland representatives who represented that part of the capital. In fact, in the third session of Congress. Maryland was represented by a Congress person that lived and voted on behalf of his territory within the boundaries of DC proper same with Virginia. Congress took away the right of DC voters to be represented in 1801 by an active legislation. And it hit we have been fighting to get it back ever since DC has had various forms of local self government, including a territorial government in the 1870s for periods of time, but for a long period of time. DC residents couldn't even elect a mayor a council, Congress was basically our government, they remain the upper chamber to our local government anytime we pass a law here that Congress disagrees with Congress can change it. And they have done that in a variety of issues whether it was our early attempts at marriage equality and equal rights for all, whether it was our laws on cannabis whether it was a needle exchange program that we found effective in fighting AIDS and bloodborne viruses. Congress would occasionally step in and substitute their judgment for our local folks and so for a lot of us DC state it was always more about self determination and local control than it was federal representation, but statehood as a bill gives us both. And as Americans we think we should have both of those rights. Senator will save any, any follow up in terms of background and history questions. No, I very much appreciate it thank you madam chair and thank you senator for being here. It is helpful just to have some background of where you came from to be able to get to what you're asking now. I guess if I could have one more question, how so for how many times or how frequently have you been asking for this should become for statehood, you know, can you list off the years like we've asked for here we've asked for here. It hasn't been something right along, you know since 1801 you know like how how many times have we seen this come in. You know, since you've lost the right. I know not since 1801 but you know how many times can we see that you've been asking for this besides this year. Sure. DC residents have been advocating for self government. Since Congress took it away in 1801. The concept of statehood began in the late 1970s with the failure of an attempt at a constitutional amendment that would have changed how the federal district is treated. There was a bill that passed both the House and the Senate and it went to the state legislatures and 16 states ratified it but time expired. So, we've really decided that the best course to do this, truest to the Constitution was to keep a federally neutral seat of government and not take that away, but simply to shrink it to the part of the district that's actually federal. And statehood was devised as a strategy that was both constitutional consistent with the rights of state and did not require amending the Constitution because we're preserving that neutral seat DC residents voted for it in 1979. We ratified a Constitution in 1982, and we began electing my positions to advocate and reaffirm our commitment to statehood beginning in 1990. In 1993 the House voted on a statehood bill. It did not pass the House. But we have been advocating consistently ever since. We have tried a variety of various other methods we would pair a house district with Republican states like Utah, but at the end of the day, statehood is the cleanest, most legal most constitutional way to do it. Congress has the exclusive power to admit new states it's done that 37 times. And it is the solution that DC voters have approved. Most recently in the 2016 general election with a referendum on the ballot, and they continue to reaffirm their statehood by voting for the so called statehood or shadow US senators and US representatives representative Hooper. Thank you madam chair and welcome virtually to Vermont again. Thank you Mr House. I think that anytime that we have the ability to give equal rights and access to Americans we should jump on it like we're going to a fire so I support this but quite frankly I have some reservations because DC surpasses only Harrisburg Pennsylvania and ratio of the lawyers per capita that's that's kind of a drawback. So, you know in Vermont, we offer the nation maple syrup. So, beyond the Constitution the bill of rights and cherry blossoms and the National School for the death I guess. What is DC going to bring to the to the party here. How many Hamilton tickets do you have access to is my bottom line question. I have tongue in cheek as somebody that ate breakfast for about four years at 14th and gee wow I was a go employee. Thank you. Thank you thank you for that. We, we hope to do what we can to take our place. But you know one of the things that it does come up is that we're primarily urban. And our economy is largely tech based. And so we won't be competing with you in the maple serious business, Sierra business and will be consumers of your agricultural products. We hope that we will continue to lead the way and tech innovations. Take our place that way. We're really so much more than a federal city. We have a dynamic economy that will help contribute when we become a state, we will be a donor state where we will contribute more to the federal treasury than we get out. And we look forward to being a full part of this democracy and this economy, considering the bill that we passed last year I'm a little bit hesitant on that agriculture consumption thing but we'll go with it. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. And thank you, Senator Strauss for testifying today. Having worked in DC for over 20 years and now having a son who both lives and works in the District of Columbia. I'm very sensitive about this issue and support this, this resolution. I'd like to him to have the same rights I do. Unfortunately, he does not. And I'm glad you raise the issue of congressional interference in local DC politics, even to the extent of changing its budget. I think there are much better things for Congress to do than focus on a single area and, you know, make changes in its laws for you know whatever the political whims are in Congress at that time. I think that that's a waste of time to have Congress focusing on that so I truly support this. And I hope I hope we can move forward with this. Thank you. Thank you. Representative LeClaire. Thank you Madam chair and thank you Senator for joining us today. You've spoke a lot about the advantages to this happening I'm just curious to know based on the unique relationship that you've got with the federal government currently. What would be some changes that you would see what is there a potential downside to this. Well, there, there is to some extent because right now the federal government pays for our entire court system. And so all of our federal judges are federal appointees. So even the family court judges have to be nominated by the White House and confirmed by the Senate, and then their salaries are paid by well you the federal tax payers, but we would much rather pay the bill ourselves appointed judges ourselves, than the laws ourselves. So, we don't necessarily see that as a burden we see that as our fair share. But I think that would be a boon to the taxpayers of Vermont because why should national taxpayers be wasting time on our local, what would be the equivalent of our local state courts. Other than that now I we think most of the benefits would be positive. And hopefully, when we do get to take our place as voting members of the Senate and sending voting members of the House. We will not be the Americans who understand government the least we will come with our own ideas our own solution, and our own experiences and, and help reason together with the senators that you send and the senators from the 49 other states to come up with solutions to some very severe problems that we're facing as a nation. Thank you for that senator so other than the court system is there any other significant changes you would see happening because of the unique relationship that DC has with the federal government. Um, I don't I see it really compliments the federal government. You know, there are some federal programs that that we get and benefit from, but they've also benefited your state. I mentioned that my daughter was a proud UVM student had a great experience up there. Part of her tuition at UVM was paid by a federal program called the tuition assistance grant program. And, and I don't know if that will continue or not. Every time members of Congress would try to cut that because it was seen as a benefit to DC students. They would hear loudly by chancellors of state university systems like yours that they benefited from from those dollars coming. But again, if that happens we have a dynamic economy, even in these challenging times that has grown. We've balanced our budget in at a time of federal deficits ballooning. So we're prepared to take on the financial responsibilities that we get. When when we come with statehood and we expect to be good responsible partners and being stewards of the federal economy, but we don't see it as anything negative. And I think it will benefit the federal taxpayers because you'll have a more independent and financially self sufficient state joining in the good. Thank you Senator. Well thank you so much for being with us today Senator Strauss this has been a very fascinating lesson in the history of the District of Columbia. In front of us, the language of our resolution and we're going to shift gears and, and go to that now with our Legislative Council so you're certainly welcome to stick around and, and join us for that, or we also respect your time if you have other things that you need to attend to but we do appreciate you zooming to Vermont and I'm sorry that it wasn't in person and in celebration of your daughter's graduations. Well, I hope to get back there. Soon enough, thank you for all the hospitality that the state has shown us. And thank you for sending us Senator Leahy and Senator Sanders. They've been good partners they've been good advocates for us. And when we've needed help. Senator Leahy in particular with his role on the appropriations committee has had to solve a lot of the problems that some of his colleagues has created, and we're grateful for that help. And we would love nothing more than to get them off that duty and back to work full time for the people of Vermont. Thank you so much. Thank you so much Mike and hang out for a little bit and when I slip out quietly know that it's with the appreciation for all of your time today. Absolutely, thank you. Michael Chernick thank you for being with us this morning. You have been part of the drafting process for this resolution and the next one we're going to look at so I would love to take a look at the language right now we all have the ability to call that up on a second and call that up on a secondary device so if you want to just walk us through the text of the resolution I would appreciate it. Good morning Madam Chair members of the committee. I'm Michael Chernick, the one of the legislative staff council, and I was involved along with Amron and drafting this resolution. Today is JRH4. And I will go through the clauses of the resolution as follows joint resolution urging Congress to admit Washington DC into the union as a state of the United States of America. Whereas the United's and of course the original sponsor was representative white from Hartford. Whereas the United States Constitution as ratified following the constitutional convention of 1787 granted the right to vote for congressional representation to qualify voters in all the states, including those living in the sections of Maryland and Virginia that the District of Columbia Organic Act of 1801 designated as the nation's capital. And whereas the act removed this territory from the states of Maryland and Virginia disenfranchising the District of Columbia as the district's citizens from exercising the fundamental right to vote for public officials. Over a century, these American citizens could not participate in any local or federal election. And whereas in 1961, the 23rd amendment to the United States Constitution gave the district's electorate the right to vote in presidential elections. And whereas in 1970 Congress enacted to USC section 25 a authorizing the district's voters to elect a non voting delegate to the United States House of Representatives. Whereas in 1973 Congress enacted the District of Columbia self government and governmental reorganization act, establishing the local Miro and city council elections in the district, but Congress has repeatedly interfered in the local government's decision making process especially on budgetary matters. And whereas the residents of the district, also known as Washington DC pay federal income tax, but are denied the full congressional representation of voting member of the US House of Representatives and to state senators that exists in each of the 50 states. And whereas DC delegate Eleanor Eleanor Holmes Norton and US Senator Tom copper of Delaware have respectively introduced the hundred seven into the 117th Congress. In 1951 and S 51 to grand statehood to the District of Columbia, now therefore be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives that the General Assembly of the state of Vermont, supporting admit supports admitting Washington DC into the union as a state of the United States of America, and be it further resolved that the Secretary of State be directed to send a copy of this resolution to President Joseph Biden to the US Senate Committee on Homeland Security and governmental affairs to the US House Committee on oversight and government reform to US Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, and to the Vermont Congressional delegation. And if I just may add in closing, I noted those two committees because those are the committees that have jurisdiction over the legislation involved. Representative Higley. Thank you Madam Chair. Michael a question, do you know how many other states have introduced such a resolution. I know a number there certainly are at least I'd say, eight or nine and a minimum. There may be more by believe it's somewhere in that range. I could be proven wrong but I'm saying that as a bottom threshold as to as opposed to what the maximum is there's been a national effort, and I know a number of other states have and I was aware of at least eight or so at a minimum. Okay thank you Michael. Committee any other questions for Legislative Council about the text of the resolution. All right. Excellent. So we are going to shift gears now and look at a similar resolution relating to the territory of Puerto Rico and. And so, Michael I don't know if you're planning. Here. Okay, great. Let folks both files on my desk. And I should acknowledge that this was a team effort in both cases with Amron we, we worked together as a team. So this is JRH nine different topic, same concept the different topic nonetheless joint resolution urging Congress to support statehood for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. So on July 25 1998 during the Spanish American War US military forces invaded the Spanish colony of Puerto Rico, and whereas pursuant to the Treaty of December 1998, which ended the conflict Spain seated Puerto Rico to the United States. And whereas the Constitution of Puerto Rico adopted in 1952 resulted in the jurisdiction's designation as a Commonwealth. And whereas in 1917, the Jones shaft work at granted Puerto Ricans US citizenship, but unless they moved to the mainland they are unable to vote in the US presidential elections. And whereas despite its having a population over 3 million representation for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico in the US House of Representatives is restricted to a single resident commissioner who unlike the representatives of the states is restricted from voting on legislation on the floor of the house, and the Commonwealth has no representation in the US Senate, and whereas discussion of possible statehood for the Commonwealth has occurred since the 1930s, and whereas Puerto Ricans have no connection with the federal response to the massive devastation and approximately 3000 deaths resulting from Hurricane Maria in 2017, and the still unsettled bankruptcy of the Puerto Rico electric power authority have intensified the debate surrounding possible statehood. And whereas although Puerto Ricans pay federal payroll taxes, their access to the services those taxes finance, including Medicaid supplemental security income supplemental nutrition assistance, and earn income tax credit is not equivalent to the statehood afforded in the states, and whereas in 2012 and 2017, a majority of the voter voters in Puerto Rico favorite of political status, other than Commonwealth, and a majority of this subset of the electric supported statehood, and whereas in March 2020 referendum 52.52% of voters in Puerto Rico supported Puerto Rico's immediate admittance as the nation's 51st state, and whereas in March 2021 US Representative Darren Soto of Florida and Puerto Rico's resident commissioner Gonzales introduced age 1522, the Puerto Rico Statehood Admissions Act, and Senator Martin Heinrich of New Mexico has introduced as 780 a comparable bill in the Senate. And whereas statehood provide the port of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, equal legal and political status with the 50 states, including full voting representation in the US House of the US Senate. It was resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives that the General Assembly urges Congress to support statehood for the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and be it further resolved that the Secretary of State be directed to send a copy of this resolution to the US Resident Commission of Puerto Rico and the Vermont Congressional delegation and a resolution. So committee we weren't able to line up someone from the Commonwealth to share with us the, the history and the perspective of Puerto Rico. We certainly will do that in a future meeting. Do you have any questions for Legislative Council for the content of this resolution Representative Higley. Thank you Madam Chair again Michael I guess I would just like to ask if you know of any other states that are putting together a resolution similar to this. I believe there are others but I can't speak as authoritatively as I can with respect to the DC where there's a national drive going on. The DC situation is a little different in that there was a basic draft circulating among the states in case in the case of Puerto Rico. Cameron and I started developing this from scratch. Thank you Michael. Again, I know even less about Puerto Rico than I, I do about Washington DC. The only thing I know about Puerto Rico is when I was in the CBs my deck. And I think that the location was supposed to be to Roosevelt roads, which was a naval base there but I happened to be transferred to another battalion and went to Diego Garcia. I guess that naval base now is a public airport. Thank you. Representative Marwiki. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Thank you very much Chair and, and like the previous member I, I have to admit I don't know enough about Puerto Rico is perhaps I should but I am willing to learn. And I think if you wanted to send a delegation, maybe to via cast or another place in Puerto Rico that we could learn more about the culture and the people there. I see what you're saying and I think that there would be tremendous value so we should probably get in touch with the Speaker's office and ask for permission for the committee to take a field trip on that representative LeClaire. Thank you Madam Chair and I might actually endorse that idea. I'm always open to an education. So Michael I have a question and I don't know if you would know the answer but where are you talking about the 2020 referendum. Yes, sir. That there was 5052.2%. Obviously that was a national referendum. That was a, it was a Commonwealth wide referendum. I point that in the resolution that referendum out in particular, because in the two prior referendums the language wasn't as necessarily clear. And this line and this language in 2020 was a straight up or down. Should there be stated. That was a clear question in 2020. So it was a Commonwealth wide. It was a 52.2%. Do I read that that's of all those who voted in the referendum. That is correct. Of the Puerto Ricans who voted in the referendum 52.5 2% supported stay hood around what was a clear up or down. And do you have any sense for how many of the registered voters participated in that particular referendum I'm trying to get to is this. In terms of the percentage that voted that I do not have right off the top of my head. Because I have to say that that percentage is a little underwhelming. I'm sort of surprised it wasn't higher. Considering, well potentially upside I've heard that Puerto Rico maybe they're really not in favor of this but I just, it's only what I read on the internet and of course, everything there I know is true. Thank you. Representative Higley. Thank you Madam chair funny but I did happen to have just a few minutes this morning to look up some information on Puerto Rico and I do have some of the information for representative of the player. It was, you know that 53 to 47% of the people that voted. There was discovered a large number of con counted votes one week after the election, 170 briefcases with as many as three to 500 ballots were found after the election. There was approximately 3 million people in Puerto Rico 600,000 voted yes to that. There was 37,000 that decided to cast their ballots blank, which is a Puerto Rican act of protest. So, take that for what you will but again I think that that provision of the resolution leaves a lot to be desired representative Anthony. Thank you very much. I don't usually trade in anecdotes or personal history but in this case I, I feel compelled to in my youth which was some six decades ago. I spent quite a bit of time on the south side of the island. And at that time, there was a stable governor who is idolized in many ways to this day, but he presided over rather bloody and ongoing clash between the independence does and the status of the state people and the independence and that system goes on, I think, well into the 20th, first century. So, again, when you read a referendum and the blank ballots. I think it's fair to say that there's a very strong feeling against the. What they what the Puerto Ricans of the island perceived as their overseers. And so frankly there's a contentious division between statehood and independence. And I think that survives to this very day. I think most Americans that I know, whether they just are tourists or expats, or people in the arena who operate businesses or public institutions in the Caribbean would much rather see Puerto Rico aligned with the United States than independent. So careful what you wish for, I guess is, is my learning experience from long years ago. Thanks. Any other questions for legislative council around the text of the resolution. All right, well there is more work to be done there. More perspectives to be considered for sure. So committee that is the end of our morning's work. We do have one brief bill to come back to for for introduction, right after the lunch break. And so I will see you back in committee at one o'clock representative Ganon. Thank you chair. I think there's a vote that's held open for representative McCarthy, that Andrew reminded us of, we could either take care of it now or after lunch is one. Let's, let's go ahead and do that is that related to under hill. I believe so. Yes. All right, let's get that on the record. Representative Colson you're muted. Okay, I should call them a McCarthy. Yes. Thank you. I guess under hill charter change just just wanted to make sure H445. The vote is 1100. Excellent. I don't recall did we designate who was going to report that representative Hickley. Oh that's right. Thank you for volunteering. I'm not holding. All right. Thank you committee for your good work this morning on, on helping to craft the amendment to the pensions bill and and for your attention to the constitutional amendment and the two resolutions have a good lunch break and I will see you promptly at one. The sooner you get here the sooner we'll leave.