    [Senate Hearing 107-555]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

       VOTING REPRESENTATION IN CONGRESS FOR CITIZENS OF THE DISTRICT OF
                                    COLUMBIA
    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                              GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                          ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                                  MAY 23, 2002

                                   __________

          Printed for the use of the Committee on Governmental Affairs

                           U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    80-602                          WASHINGTON : 2002
    ___________________________________________________________________________
    For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
    Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov  Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
    Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001

                       COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

                   JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut, Chairman
    CARL LEVIN, Michigan                 FRED THOMPSON, Tennessee
    DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii              TED STEVENS, Alaska
    RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois          SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine
    ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey     GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
    MAX CLELAND, Georgia                 THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi
    THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware           ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah
    JEAN CARNAHAN, Missouri              JIM BUNNING, Kentucky
    MARK DAYTON, Minnesota               PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois
               Joyce A. Rechtschaffen, Staff Director and Counsel
                         Cynthia Gooen Lesser, Counsel
                Michael L. Alexander, Professional Staff Member
                  Richard A. Hertling, Minority Staff Director
                       Johanna L. Hardy, Minority Counsel
                         Darla D. Cassell, Chief Clerk

                                C O N T E N T S

                                     ------
    Opening statements:
                                                                       Page
        Senator Lieberman............................................     1
        Senator Durbin...............................................     3
        Senator Levin................................................     4
    Prepared statement:
        Senator Bunning..............................................    37

                                   WITNESSES
                             Thursday, May 23, 2002

    Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton, a Representative in Congress from the
      District of Columbia...........................................     5
    Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson, a Representative in Congress from the
      State of Texas.................................................     9
    Hon. Russell D. Feingold, a U.S. Senator from the State of
      Wisconsin......................................................    10
    Hon. Anthony A. Williams, Mayor, District of Columbia............    13
    Hon. Linda W. Cropp. Chairman, Council of the District of
      Columbia.......................................................    16
    Hon. Florence H. Pendleton, District of Columbia Statehood
      Senator........................................................    18
    Wade Henderson, Executive Director, Leadership Conference on
      Civil Rights...................................................    22
    Adam H. Kurland, Professor of Law, Howard University School of
      Law............................................................    24
    Jamin B. Raskin, Professor, Washington College of Law, The
      American University............................................    29

                         Alphabetical List of Witnesses

    Cropp, Hon. Linda W.:
        Testimony....................................................    16
        Prepared statement with attachments..........................    53
    Feingold, Hon. Russell D.:
        Testimony....................................................    10
        Prepared statement...........................................    41
    Henderson, Wade:
        Testimony....................................................    22
        Prepared statement...........................................    62
    Johnson, Hon. Eddie Bernice:
        Testimony....................................................     9
    Kurland, Adam H.:
        Testimony....................................................    24
        Prepared statement...........................................    68
    Norton, Hon. Eleanor Holmes:
        Testimony....................................................     5
        Prepared statement...........................................    38
    Pendleton, Hon. Florence H.:
        Testimony....................................................    18
    Raskin, Jamin B.:
        Testimony....................................................    29
        Prepared statement...........................................    79
    Williams, Hon. Anthony A.:
        Testimony....................................................    13
        Prepared statement with an attachment........................    44

                                    Appendix

    Memorandum dated May 22, 2002, sent to Hon. Eleanor Holmes
      Norton, Hon. Anthony Williams, Hon. Linda Cropp and Hon. Robert
      Rigsby from Walter Smith, Executive Director, DC Appleseed
      Center, regarding Congress' Authority to Pass Legislation
      Giving D.C. Citizens Voting Representation in Congress
      (submitted by Mayor Williams)..................................    89
    Resolutions (submitted by Mayor Williams) from:
        State of Illinois............................................   100
        City of Chicago..............................................   101
        City of Philadelphia.........................................   102
        City of Baltimore............................................   103
        City of New Orleans..........................................   106
        City of Cleveland............................................   107
        City of Los Angeles..........................................   108
        City of San Francisco Board of Supervisors...................   109
    Article by Jamin B. Raskin entitled ``Is This America? The
      District of Columbia and the Right to Vote,'' Harvard Civil
      Rights--Civil Liberties Law, Vol. 34, No. 1, Winter 1999.......   111
    Betty Ann Kane, on behalf of the Board of Directors, Committee
      for the Capital City, prepared statement.......................   171
    Article entitled ``Implicit Statehood: Give the District a new
      constitutional status,'' by Timothy D. Cooper, Charles Wesley
      Harris, and Mark David Richards................................   174
    Hon. Ralph Regula, a Representative in Congress from the State of
      Ohio, prepared statement.......................................   175
    Senator Paul Strauss, Shadow United States Senator Elected by
      Voters of the District of Columbia, prepared statement with
      attachments....................................................   177
    Letter dated April 2, 2002 to President Bush from James N.
      Rimensnyder, Cadet PFC USCC....................................   189
    Letter dated March 26, 2002, from Joseph N. Grano, President,
      Rhodes Tavern--D.C. Heritage Society, with attachments.........   190
    John Forster, Activities Coordinator, Committee for the Capital
      City, prepared statement.......................................   194
    Antonia Hernandez, President and General Counsel, Mexican
      American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), prepared
      statement......................................................   195

    Questions for the record from Senator Thompson and responses
      from:
        Mr. Kurland with attachments.................................   198

       VOTING REPRESENTATION IN CONGRESS FOR CITIZENS OF THE DISTRICT OF
                                    COLUMBIA

                                  ----------

                             THURSDAY, MAY 23, 2002

                                           U.S. Senate,
                             Committee on Governmental Affairs,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:36 p.m., in
    room SD-342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Joseph I.
    Lieberman, Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
        Present: Senators Lieberman, Durbin, and Levin.

                OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN LIEBERMAN

        Chairman Lieberman. Good afternoon. This hearing will come
    to order. I thank the Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton for being
    here. We have two other members of the opening panel. The
    second Congresswoman is Eddie Bernice Johnson. Senator Feingold
    is on the way.
        This hearing has been called to discuss a question that is
    for 600,000 Americans an ongoing injustice and is for the
    Nation as a whole, I think, a stain on the fabric of our
    democracy. The question is, when will we finally extend full
    voting rights and voting representation in Congress to citizens
    of the District of Columbia? This denial is more than an
    historical anomaly. It is an ongoing and outrageous
    contradiction of the fundamental principles and rights of
    citizens of our great country.
        The Governmental Affairs Committee, which I am privileged
    to Chair, has oversight over the municipal affairs of the
    District of Columbia and in that sense has jurisdiction over
    the matter that we are discussing today.
        To me, it is incomprehensible that in the year 2002, ours
    is the only democracy in the world in which citizens of the
    capital city are not represented in the national legislature.
    Think of what visitors from around the world think when they
    come to see all of the beautiful landmarks and monuments of
    this great capital city, which are the symbols worldwide of
    democracy, if they would know that the people who live in this
    city alongside those symbols of democracy every day do not have
    one of the fundamental rights of that democracy, which is
    voting representation in the Congress.
        You know, I was thinking the other day what the reaction
    would be in Congress if for some reason the residents of Boston
    or Nashville or Denver or Seattle or El Paso had no voting
    representation here in Congress, and I pick all of those cities
    because they are about the same size as Washington, DC. The
    reality is that the Nation would not let those citizens go
    voiceless in Congress. So is it only because this injustice has
    gone on for so long that we tolerate it here in our Nation's
    capital?
        Obviously, citizens of the District pay Federal taxes. They
    serve and die in war. Yet, they are denied this fundamental
    right. Even though they pay taxes, they have no say about how
    those taxes are levied or on what priority that money from
    their taxes may be spent.
        The vote is a civic entitlement of every American citizen.
    It is democracy's most essential right and our most effective
    tool. The citizens who live in our Nation's capital deserve
    more than a non-voting delegate in the House. Notwithstanding
    the extraordinarily strong service of the Hon. Congresswoman
    Eleanor Holmes Norton, who is with us today, non-voting
    representation just is not good enough. As all who are here, I
    presume, know, while Ms. Norton may vote in committees, she
    cannot vote on the House floor. That is wrong and must be
    changed.
        That is why I am proud to be the Senate sponsor of the No
    Taxation Without Representation Act, which Congresswoman Norton
    has introduced in the House. I am delighted that Senator Russ
    Feingold, who is also an original sponsor of the legislation,
    is with us today.
        Of course, the name of our legislation is taken from our
    own revolutionary history because our forbearers went to war
    rather than pay taxes without being represented. The citizens
    of our capital city express by this movement that they believe
    in the principles the Nation's revolutionary heroes established
    and they want to benefit now from them.
        The bill's title, No Taxation Without Representation, is,
    if I might say so, pointed and ironic. Obviously, what the
    people of the District seek is voting representation, not
    exemption from taxes. In fact, the bill states in its first
    operative paragraph that District of Columbia residents shall
    have full voting representation in Congress. The tax provision
    is in the bill for effect, to remind us of this fundamental
    American principle that gave birth to our Nation and of the
    fact that no other taxpaying Americans are required today to
    pay taxes without representation in Congress.
        A recent national poll was of interest to me on this
    subject and it showed that a majority of Americans believe that
    District residents already have Congressional voting rights.
    You cannot blame them for that because it is so unbelievable
    that residents of the District do not have voting rights. But
    interestingly, when those who were polled were informed that
    District residents do not have voting rights, more than 80
    percent said that they should.
        Well, if we can right this wrong, we would, in that sense,
    therefore, not only be following the will of the American
    people, we would be advancing the cause of our Nation's
    historic destiny and, of course, fulfilling our responsibility.
        When we placed our capital, which was not established in
    their day, under the jurisdiction of Congress, the Framers of
    our Constitution, in effect, placed with Congress, I think, the
    solemn responsibility of assuring that the rights of the
    citizens of the District would be protected in the future.
    Congress has failed to meet this obligation now for much too
    long.
        In the words of this city's namesake, our first President,
    ``Precedents are dangerous things. Let the reigns of government
    then be braced and held with a steady hand and every violation
    of the Constitution be reprehended. If defective, let it be
    amended, but not suffer it to be trampled on whilst it has an
    existence.''
        People of the District of Columbia have suffered this
    constitutional defect for far too long, so let us reprehend it
    and amend it together.
        I look forward to hearing from all of the witnesses today
    and I am pleased now to be joined by Senator Durbin, who is
    also a cosponsor of this legislation, and would call on him now
    for an opening statement.

                  OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR DURBIN

        Senator Durbin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for scheduling
    this hearing to explore the important question of whether the
    citizens of the District of Columbia should be granted full
    voting representation in Congress, and I salute your leadership
    on this issue.
        I am Chairman of the District of Columbia Authorizing
    Subcommittee and a member of the D.C. Appropriations
    Subcommittee. I have served in that capacity over the last 4
    years. I have lived part-time and occasionally full-time in the
    District of Columbia for about 39 years, so it really has been
    a second home to me, in addition to my State of Illinois, and I
    have watched a lot of changes in the District of Columbia. I
    never dreamed that I would be in this position in the U.S.
    Senate to help this great city.
        But we have passed some important legislation restoring the
    management and personnel authority of the D.C. Mayor,
    establishing a program to afford D.C. high school graduates the
    benefits of in-State tuition at State colleges and universities
    outside the District, permitting Federal law enforcement
    agencies to enter into cooperative agreements with D.C.
    Metropolitan Police, establishing a specialized family court,
    authorizing the redevelopment through the GSA of the Southeast
    Federal Center, and many other things.
        What I have found interesting in 20 years of service in
    Congress, and I am sure that Congresswoman Norton would agree
    with me on this, is how many men and women run for the House of
    Representatives and for the Senate when their secret desire is
    to be a mayor, because time and again, when issues come up
    involving the District of Columbia, these men and women who
    could not wait to get to Washington want to perform the role of
    mayor and city council when it comes to the District of
    Columbia. [Laughter.]
        It is startling. There are times, and Congresswoman Norton
    can back me up on this, when these people will condemn in the
    District of Columbia the very programs that they have at home.
    They would not have the nerve to bring up these issues at home,
    but because the District of Columbia is almost voiceless on
    Capitol Hill but for your heroic efforts, without a vote, they
    feel that they can make some sort of a political point. It is
    nothing short of amazing to watch this spectacle unfold.
        Now, I have also over the years taken exception with
    decisions by the D.C. City Council and I have been pretty vocal
    about them. But I have always tried to draw the line at taking
    exceptions. I do not believe it is my role, responsibility, or
    right to impose my views on the people of the District of
    Columbia when it comes to their sovereignty and their judgment
    of governance. I think that is one of the fundamental elements
    of a democracy and it is one that has been ignored by this
    Congress time and time again.
        It is long overdue for the 572,000 residents of the
    District of Columbia to have their voice on Capitol Hill, to
    have a voting Congressman, voting Senators, and to have
    representation that speaks for them with a vote in these two
    chambers. I think we have reached the point where we cannot
    make excuses any longer.
        Now, we all know why the District of Columbia is not a
    State, because, frankly, there are those who have made the
    political calculation that it may tip the scales one way or the
    other. But for goodness sakes, is that not what democracy is
    all about, to let the people tip the scales as they see fit
    with their right to vote?
        Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for this hearing.
        Chairman Lieberman. Thank you, Senator Durbin, for your
    support of the bill and for your excellent statement.
        Senator Levin, thank you for joining us.

                   OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LEVIN

        Senator Levin. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thank
    you for calling this hearing on a very fundamental issue, one
    of the issues that this country was founded upon.
        There are just simply no ``if''s, ``and''s, or ``but''s
    about it. We must correct the denial of representation which so
    unfairly and undemocratically locks the District of Columbia
    residents out of Congress. District residents share the same
    characteristics of citizenship as the residents of the 50
    States. They serve in the military. They have lost their
    husbands and wives, their sons and their daughters in foreign
    wars, defending our government. They study the Constitution and
    the obligations of citizenship. They say the same pledge of
    allegiance to the flag as every other American does. They are
    governed by the laws of the United States. They pay Federal
    taxes, in fact, more Federal taxes per capita than the
    residents of any other State but one.
        Yet, because the District is not recognized as a State and
    because of our failure to act for so long, D.C. residents do
    not have the full voting representation in Congress that they
    deserve.
        I would ask that the balance of my statement be inserted in
    the record, Mr. Chairman, because I know you want to proceed
    with this hearing, but I want to just commend our first panel
    for all of the tremendous work that they have done. I would
    also like to commend the Delegate who is before us, Eleanor
    Holmes Norton. You have performed very nobly under very
    difficult and limited circumstances which should end.
        Chairman Lieberman. Thanks, Senator Levin. Thank you very
    much.
        [The prepared statement of Senator Levin follows:]

                      PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR LEVIN
        Good afternoon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing
    on one of the most fundamental issues upon which our country was
    founded--the right to representation in making the laws that govern
    you. There are no ``ifs,'' ``ands'' or ``buts'' about it. The time is
    long past due to remedy the denial of representation which unfairly and
    undemocratically locks District of Columbia residents out of Congress.
        District residents share the same characteristics of citizenship as
    the residents of the 50 states: they serve in the military and have
    lost their husbands and wives, sons and daughters, in foreign wars
    defending our form of government; they study the Constitution and the
    obligations of citizenship; they say the pledge of allegiance to the
    flag; they are governed by the laws of the United States; and they pay
    Federal taxes, in fact more Federal taxes per capita than the residents
    of any other State except Alaska.
        Yet--because the District is not recognized as a State, and because
    of our failure to act for decades, D.C. residents do not have full
    voting representation in Congress. That means, very simply, that they
    are taxed without representation.
        I have not cosponsored S. 603, the No Taxation Without
    Representation Act, because while I understand the depth of frustration
    reflected in the provision in the bill that would allow citizens of the
    District to stop paying taxes until they get voting representation, I
    can't support that provision. Like residents of the 50 States,
    residents of the District of Columbia receive the protection of our
    military, the benefits of our social programs, our court system, and
    the freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution. However, I believe that
    full congressional representation should be adopted for the citizens of
    the District of Columbia, and I support legislation to do that. That
    action is long past due. Hopefully, the time will soon come, and this
    hearing can help make that happen.
        I welcome all of our distinguished panelists. Delegate Eleanor
    Holmes Norton, clearly we would not be here today without your
    steadfast leadership and your commitment to bring justice to the people
    of the District. We've had great communication with your office during
    the years on a number of matters, and I have a deep appreciation for
    you and your dedication to this city.
        To Representative Eddie Bernice Johnson, Chair of the Congressional
    Black Caucus, Wade Henderson of the Leadership Conference on Civil
    Rights, with whom I have been engaged on many issues, Mayor Anthony
    Williams, D.C. Council Chair Linda Cropp, Statehood Senator Pendleton,
    Professor Adam Kurland, and Professor Jamin Raskin, we are pleased that
    you are here.
        I know your testimony will further enlighten this Committee and
    hopefully advance the ball on this important issue.

        Chairman Lieberman. Senator Feingold, if you have the time,
    it would be my inclination to call on Congresswoman Norton
    first. It is a pleasure to be your cosponsor, your coworker,
    and without revealing exact dates, to have been your friend and
    classmate at Yale Law School some considerable period of time
    ago. [Laughter.]
        The Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton.

    TESTIMONY OF HON. ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON,\1\ A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                 CONGRESS FROM THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

        Ms. Norton. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and for the record,
    I want you to know that I was ahead of you.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Norton appears in the Appendix on
    page 38.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Chairman Lieberman. That is very gracious of you. I was not
    going to reveal that. [Laughter.]
        You are looking very well. [Laughter.]
        Senator Levin. I just wonder if the rest of us should
    excuse ourselves while these two just have their conversation.
    [Laughter.]
        Ms. Norton. I did not say by how much----
        Chairman Lieberman. It was close.
        Ms. Norton [continuing]. But I thought I had to lay the
    record straight there lest I get an advantage to which I am not
    entitled.
        I begin by thanking you, Mr. Chairman, not only for
    introducing the No Taxation Without Representation Act, but for
    going further and holding this hearing on the voting rights
    provision of the bill. Ever true to high principles, you have
    always supported equal treatment for the residents of the
    District of Columbia, unfailingly stepping forward to lead and
    supporting bills for equal representation for D.C. residents.
        You have already brought the No Taxation Without
    Representation Act to the Senate floor during the debate on
    election reform in February. You submitted the bill as an
    amendment to the election reform bill because you said you
    believe that the voting rights issues raised in Florida in the
    2000 Presidential election only served to spotlight the denial
    of any vote at all in Congress to D.C. residents. By agreement
    with us and all concerned, your amendment was withdrawn until
    the bill is fully ready for vote.
        However, in your remarks, you said that you hope the
    discussion of the No Taxation Without Representation Act on the
    Senate floor, a discussion of D.C. voting rights, the first
    discussion of D.C. voting rights on the Senate floor in memory,
    would help educate the Senate about the denial here in
    preparation for granting D.C. the Congressional vote.
        I come today on the heels of a highly successful D.C. Lobby
    Day, last Wednesday, when more than 250 residents, energized by
    your bill in the Senate, visited every Senate office to seek
    cosponsors. The sponsors of the Lobby Day, the Leadership
    Conference on Civil Rights, People for the American Way, D.C.
    Vote, and Stand Up for Democracy, are in the throes now of
    making follow-up calls for final answers on sponsorship. I want
    to thank the Senators who are signing on now with a dozen
    cosponsors on the bill and follow-up calls still being made.
        The significance of the first citywide Lobby Day in the
    Senate was not lost on another strong supporter, Majority
    Leader Tom Daschle, who graciously agreed to meet with leaders
    of the coalition, the city, and the business community, as well
    as the Chair of the Democratic National Committee, on the
    morning of Lobby Day.
        I want also to thank Senator Max Baucus, who with you and
    Senator Daschle have worked to make clear that the only point
    of our bill is and always has been to achieve voting rights and
    its proper place in this Committee for that purpose. My special
    thanks also to your able and energetic staff for the
    magnificent work they have done since you introduced the bill.
        We will hear from others today about the damage to
    democracy and to the District because D.C. residents are denied
    the Congressional vote. I believe I can be most useful if I
    testify briefly from the unique perspective of the one official
    District residents are permitted to send to Congress.
        Beyond notions of fairness and equality, the role of the
    one non-voting delegate whose constituents pay Federal income
    taxes points up the absurdity of the present arrangement for us
    and for the Congress. At best, antiquated, inefficient, quite
    unintended by the Framers, and embarrassing. At worst,
    discriminatory, undemocratic, and shameful.
        The District is seriously harmed by having no
    representation in the Senate. I have the same privileges on the
    Senate floor as any House member, but even when the D.C. budget
    is before you, I can be on the floor, but not speak on the
    floor on our own budget. To its credit, the House has extended
    to delegates every privilege of the House except, of course,
    the most important, the vote on the House floor. The House has
    long allowed delegates the valuable vote in Committee. In
    response to the memo I submitted in 1993, the House even
    changed its rules to allow delegate voting in the Committee of
    the Whole, where most of our work is done.
        However, Mr. Chairman, measure the Nation's high-sounding
    rhetoric about democracy, preached unceasingly, particularly
    today, against the reality that even this delegate vote, which
    was not the full right other members enjoy, was rescinded by
    rule when the Republicans gained control of the House.
        The indignities to the residents I represent know no
    bounds. My testimony today will consist of a few among many
    examples that could be offered to demonstrate this point. It is
    useless and redundant and insulting enough to our Mayor,
    Council, and residents, alone in this country who are treated
    as children by the requirement to send their balanced budget to
    the Congress, where it is often toyed with and decorated with
    undemocratic attachments, while I press Congress to allow a
    local jurisdiction to spend its own local taxpayer-raised
    money.
        After struggling every year to get the D.C. budget to the
    floor, I must then stand aside, unable to cast a vote on our
    own budget, while members of the House from 49 States where
    residents pay less in Federal income taxes per capita than my
    constituents vote yea or nay on the D.C. budget. Indeed, my
    colleagues from seven States that have populations about our
    size each have one vote in the House and two in the Senate on
    the D.C. budget and on everything else. This pathetic paradox
    has been acted out on the House floor countless times in the 32
    years D.C. has had a delegate.
        Sometimes life and death issues have been at stake, such as
    when, without a vote, I had to fight off two bills that would
    have wiped out all of the District's gun laws in 1999 in the
    House, or when the Senate with no representation in this body
    forced a death penalty referendum on the District that the city
    turned back two-to-one in 1992.
        Even the voting rights that D.C. has won have not been
    fully realized. Lacking the vote during the House impeachment
    proceedings, my only recourse to preserve D.C.'s 1996
    Presidential vote, as guaranteed by the 23rd Amendment, was to
    bring a privileged resolution to the House floor. I argued that
    the vote for President that residents had cast required that a
    D.C. vote also be cast in the House concerning whether the
    President should be removed from office. The Speaker ruled
    against the District.
        Yet never, Mr. Chairman, have I felt more deeply about the
    denial of the vote to our residents than when our Nation has
    been called to war. I spoke but could not vote on the
    commitment of troops in the Persian Gulf War and most recently
    on the resolution authorizing the war against terrorism.
        I know you understand how deeply the denial of the vote in
    time of war cuts, Mr. Chairman. You said as much in your
    remarks on the Senate floor when you submitted the No Taxation
    Without Representation Act as an amendment to the election
    reform bill. You said that D.C. residents have
    disproportionately suffered casualties in America's wars. You
    informed the Senate that in World War I, the District suffered
    more casualties than three States, in World War II, more
    casualties than four States, in Korea, more casualties than
    eight States, and in Vietnam, more casualties than ten States.
        I believe it is fair to say that the examples in this
    testimony would shock most Americans, the great majority of
    whom say in the polls that we should have the Congressional
    vote. The examples I have cited and many more like them stand
    out like a disfiguring scar that, at best, robs our country of
    international credibility, and at worst, leaves us open to
    charges of hypocrisy.
        The denial of the vote to the 600,000 citizens who reside
    in the Nation's capital stunts the otherwise determined logic
    and progression about democracy, the 14th Amendment
    guaranteeing equal protection of the laws, the 15th Amendment
    guaranteeing the vote regardless of race, the 17th Amendment
    providing for direct popular election of Senators, the 19th
    Amendment enfranchising women, the 23rd Amendment affording
    District residents the right to vote for President, the Supreme
    Court's ``one person, one vote'' decisions, the 1965 Voting
    Rights Act barring impediments to voting regardless of race.
        Today, we ask the Congress that brought us this far along
    the way to democracy and equality not to stop now. Do not hold
    back the tide. The Senate saw that tide roll into this chamber
    on Lobby Day. D.C. residents came here in large numbers for the
    first time to show that they are free Americans, that the
    Senate is not off limits to them, and that they are entitled to
    representation here.
        Today, we ask the Senate to respond to these D.C. residents
    who represented the entire city when they came to lobby last
    Wednesday. We ask you to give them what they are due as
    Americans. We ask you to give them the Congressional vote that
    is the democratic hallmark of our republic. We ask you to pass
    the No Taxation Without Representation Act and we thank you,
    Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Lieberman. I thank you, Delegate Norton, for your
    eloquent statement and for your passionate advocacy and I look
    forward to continuing to work with you in this cause.
        It is very important to state, I think, that neither of us
    or those at the table with you who support this cause or
    Senator Durbin and I have any illusions about the political
    difficulties in advancing it. But our hope in introducing the
    No Taxation Without Representation proposal was to bring our
    colleagues, and hopefully others throughout the country, back
    to the principle that you have just spoken to so effectively,
    which is this outrageous reality that 600,000 Americans are
    denied full voting rights in the year 2002.
        So by one way or the other, I know that you and I and
    Congresswoman Johnson, Senator Feingold, Senator Durbin, and
    others are committed to continuing to push forward until we are
    able to not only create or at least encourage, if not coerce,
    people to express the consensus that is undeniable, that this
    is wrong, and then to figure out how we together can go forward
    to make it right.
        Congresswoman Eddie Bernice Johnson from Texas, Chair of
    the Congressional Black Caucus, thank you very much for taking
    the time to come and join us today.

     TESTIMONY OF HON. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
                    CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS

        Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is my
    privilege to testify before the Senate Governmental Affairs
    Committee today on behalf of the 38 members of the
    Congressional Black Caucus. We salute you, Mr. Chairman, for
    your stand-up leadership in moving to eliminate discrimination
    in representation endured for too long by the citizens of the
    capital of the United States.
        Thank you for leading the Senate in sponsoring the No
    Taxation Without Representation Act and for holding this
    important hearing on the bill. All 38 members of the
    Congressional Black Caucus are sponsors of the bill in the
    House. Congress gave the District of Columbia the right to
    elect a delegate to the House shortly after the Caucus was
    founded in 1969. The D.C. Delegate has always represented
    people of all races equally. However, from the beginning, the
    Congressional Black Caucus took special umbrage that a member
    of our Caucus whose constituents paid Federal income taxes
    could not vote on the House floor.
        Today, Mr. Chairman, 32 years after the District got a
    delegate in this century, and 33 years after the formation of
    the Congressional Black Caucus, our umbrage has become anger.
    The CBC was formed during a high point of the civil rights
    movement and our members have always felt a special obligation
    to the District because the city is largely an African American
    city. A member of our Caucus has been deliberately handicapped
    in her work by the Congress. Although she is in every way equal
    to the rest of us, especially in the Federal income tax her
    constituents pay, she is treated unequally in the House in
    which we serve because of the intentional denial of voting
    representation to her constituents, and even more unequally in
    the Senate, where her constituents are without any
    representation.
        Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton knows how to use her
    considerable voice and intelligence to benefit her
    constituents, but she has to do it with one hand tied behind
    her back. However, the Caucus concern goes well beyond the
    regard we have for one of our own or the special effort the CBC
    makes to help ensure that the District's interests are
    protected in the House, where residents have no vote.
        African Americans in this country identify strongly with
    the denial of voting representation to the District of
    Columbia. More than half of the districts of the Congressional
    Black Caucus members experienced a similar denial in Congress
    until the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, including
    my own State of Texas. We emphasize that we of the
    Congressional Black Caucus make no difference based on race in
    our insistence on the sanctity of the vote and of the right of
    all people to a full and equal vote. We have worked hard on an
    election reform bill that is now before the House--and before
    that was precipitated by the 2000 Presidential election that
    robbed thousands of citizens of every race and ethnic
    background of their vote and determined an outcome at odds with
    the popular vote.
        However, if you want to get African Americans in this
    country angry today, just tell them that there is a majority
    black city anywhere in America where blacks and other Americans
    are treated as second-class citizens. Tell them that city is
    our Nation's capital and you spur them to especially strong
    action.
        We are engaged in such action today. The CBC, like the
    Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, has made the No Taxation
    Without Representation Act a priority. Our constituents expect
    no less from us because Congressional voting rights for the
    District of Columbia residents is a civil rights issue of
    historic importance whose time is long overdue. Many African
    Americans question the commitment of Members of the Congress to
    equal treatment if Members are timid about equal Congressional
    representation for all taxpaying Americans, including the
    residents of our capital. The denial of voting rights to
    taxpaying Americans who have fought in all of our wars raises
    profound moral issues.
        If we are to fight terrorism and help create democratic
    institutions abroad, we must first clean our own house. Our
    Nation is the leader of democracy and freedom and I find it
    incredulous that we deny the vote to 600,000 residents in the
    high-profile capital of this country.
        Let me assure you, Mr. Chairman, Congressional voting
    rights for the citizens of the Nation's capital has the laser-
    like attention of the Congressional Black Caucus. Our members
    and our constituents are watching. We ask the rest of the
    Senate to follow your lead and we ask that the Senate please
    not let us down. I thank you very much.
        Chairman Lieberman. Thank you, Congresswoman Johnson, for
    an excellent and very principled statement. I appreciate it
    very much.
        Senator Feingold, thanks for being here. There are probably
    those in America who think that Senator Feingold's first name
    is McCain. [Laughter.]
        But it is Russell, Senator Russell Feingold, and I cannot
    thank him enough for joining me in this effort in the Senate
    because he really brings to it the same principle, personal
    principle, and sense of purpose that he brought to campaign
    finance reform. It took him a while, but he got it done. It may
    take us a while, but we are going to get it done. Senator
    Feingold.

     TESTIMONY OF HON. RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD,\1\ A U.S. SENATOR FROM
                         THE STATE OF WISCONSIN

        Senator Feingold. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My official name
    change is going to come through before the next election. It
    will look good on the ballot. [Laughter.]
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The prepared statement of Senator Feingold appears in the
    Appendix on page 41.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Thank you for inviting me to join you today and for
    allowing me to make a brief statement in support of our effort
    to secure full voting representation in Congress for the
    residents of the District of Columbia. I want to commend you,
    Mr. Chairman, as the others have, for your leadership and your
    work on this and your comments about how truly unbelievable it
    is that this can be the case in the United States of America in
    the year 2002. I want my colleagues in the House to know that
    when my constituents in Wisconsin find out about this, they are
    surprised, astonished, and they do not think it is right, and I
    am hoping that this is a message that can get clear throughout
    the country.
        I am very pleased, in fact, honored to be here today with
    Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton. She has been a longtime,
    tireless champion of this important issue in Congress. It is an
    honor to work with her and with the Chairman and, of course,
    with Representative Johnson. I recently benefitted from her
    tremendous leadership skills in that very ability you were just
    kidding me about. Were it not for Representative Johnson and
    her leadership, I am not at all sure that we would have
    succeeded in the House of Representatives, and that bill had to
    do with the integrity of the vote and this one has to do with
    the right to vote, which is even more fundamental. So I thank
    you for your help on that.
        Mr. Chairman, our Nation, the greatest democracy on earth,
    was born out of a struggle against taxation without
    representation. Before the Revolutionary War, the British
    Government levied taxes on American colonists, but while these
    colonists were required to pay taxes to the British Government,
    they had no say, no voice, no power over how they would be
    governed. Just a few years before the first battle of the
    Revolutionary War, the British continued the imposition of
    Federal taxes with the Stamp Act and the Sugar Act.
        As we all know, in 1773, the Boston Tea Party took place.
    American colonists raided the three British ships in Boston
    Harbor and threw the tea overboard to protest the British tea
    tax. Soon thereafter, the colonists began to mobilize and to
    fight for independence, and ``no taxation without
    representation'' became a rallying cry. A few years later, of
    course, after a long and hard-fought struggle, a free and
    independent America was born.
        Yet more than 200 years later, Mr. Chairman, Americans in
    the District of Columbia, home to over half-a-million
    residents, remain disenfranchised. They are in a situation not
    all that different from that of the American patriots who
    fought so hard and sacrificed their lives to someday live free.
        Mr. Chairman, when the District of Columbia was created as
    our Nation's capital 200 years ago, its residents lost their
    right to full Congressional representation. These Americans, as
    we have pointed out, served in our Nation's Armed Forces, pay
    Federal taxes, and keep our Federal Government and capital city
    running day and night. They live in the shadows of the
    monuments of our forefathers and in this country's most highly
    praised defenders of democracy.
        They fight and die for this country in armed conflict, and
    yet they have no voice in the Senate and only a limited voice
    in the House. They do not even have the right to vote on basic
    administrative matters that other States and cities decide for
    themselves. Virtually every other Nation grants the residents
    of its capital city equal representation in its legislature. It
    is simply an embarrassment that in these modern times, we, as
    the world's most powerful democracy, deny voting representation
    to over half-a-million Americans.
        Since the ratification of the Constitution in 1788, the
    United States has forged its own suffrage history, guaranteeing
    the right to vote to all Americans regardless of race, gender,
    wealth, marital status, or land ownership. Through our
    interpretation of the ``one person, one vote'' doctrine, we
    have made great strides in overcoming inequality and under-
    representation. There remains, however, this unresolved
    obstacle to suffrage for all Americans, the disenfranchisement
    of D.C. residents.
        Mr. Chairman, it is past time for Congress to undo this
    injustice, and so I was pleased to join you earlier this year
    as a cosponsor of the amendment that Representative Eleanor
    Holmes Norton mentioned to the election reform bill on the
    issue of voting representation for D.C. residents. I am told
    that this was probably the first time since 1978, when the
    Senate considered a constitutional amendment, that the issue of
    voting representation for D.C. residents was even debated on
    the floor of the Senate. After debate, you withdrew the
    amendment, but it was important to begin debating this issue in
    the Senate again. It is long overdue.
        So I again commend you, Mr. Chairman, for continuing the
    debate by holding a hearing on this issue today. Particularly
    at this time when D.C. residents are members of our Nation's
    military, the National Guard, the Capitol Police, who are
    serving in so many other important roles to fight terrorism and
    to protect our Nation from future terrorist attacks, it is, in
    fact, shameful, to pick one of the words that Representative
    Norton used, it is shameful that we deny them the right to full
    representation in Congress.
        It is past time for Congress to act. I urge our colleagues
    to join Senator Lieberman and me as cosponsors of the No
    Taxation Without Representation Act. This is an important bill
    to send a message that taxation without representation is
    unfair and un-American, and so I urge my colleagues to join us
    in ensuring full voting representation for Americans who call
    the District of Columbia their home. Thank you for the
    opportunity, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Lieberman. Thank you, Senator Feingold, for an
    excellent statement.
        I thank the three of you. Obviously, I have a position
    here, but I think the three statements have been very eloquent
    and moving and speaking from principle. I cannot say clearly
    enough that your presence and your words, as well as those of
    Senator Durbin and Senator Levin, both of whom had to go, make
    the point that we are not engaged here today in an act of
    symbolism. We have begun again a very serious effort to obtain
    what the citizens of the District of Columbia deserve under our
    Constitution, which is full voting rights and full
    representation, and we are going to continue in every way we
    can on every field we can to fight for this until we achieve
    it.
        Our numbers are growing. Your words encourage me and I look
    forward to working with you until we achieve the victory we all
    seek. Thank you very much, the three of you.
        We will call now on the second panel, who represent the
    Government of the District of Columbia and representation from
    the District of Columbia, Hon. Anthony Williams, Mayor of the
    District of Columbia, the Hon. Linda W. Cropp, Chair of the
    Council of the District of Columbia, and the Hon. Florence H.
    Pendleton, District of Columbia Statehood Senator.
        I also want to welcome Senator Pendleton's two colleagues,
    Statehood Senator Paul Strauss and Statehood Representative Ray
    Brown, who are also here today. If the two of you are here, why
    do you not stand. I thank you for all you have done. You are
    already acting like full-fledged Members of Congress by
    yielding to Statehood Senator Pendleton on the basis of
    seniority. [Laughter.]
        But we thank you for what you have done on behalf of this
    cause.
        Mayor Williams, thanks for being here. I know if I dwell
    for too long on our Yale contacts, I will be considered to be
    parochial, but I do want to state for the record that you were
    there long after I was. [Laughter.]
        I say as a matter of personal privilege, which you know,
    how proud I am to have watched your career come from Yale
    undergraduate to Lieberman ward worker to member of the Board
    of Aldermen in New Haven, to official of the State of
    Connecticut Government, to official of the Federal Department
    of Agriculture, to the Emergency Financial Board--I am not
    giving the right title to it--and then to be a truly superb
    Mayor of this Nation's capital city. I do not get the chance to
    do that too much on the record, and with those words, I welcome
    you and look forward to your testimony now.

     TESTIMONY OF HON. ANTHONY A. WILLIAMS,\1\ MAYOR, DISTRICT OF
                                COLUMBIA

        Mayor Williams. Mr. Chairman, let me thank you, when you
    are Mayor, you will take compliments wherever you can get them,
    and I appreciate your remarks. I really do. [Laughter.]
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The prepared statement of Mayor Williams with an attachment
    appears in the Appendix on page 44.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Thank you for your leadership over these years, not only in
    regards to the District but in general, on a national level and
    certainly for Connecticut. You have my appreciation and
    certainly my recognition as a friend and as your Mayor while
    you are here in Washington.
        Chairman Lieberman. Thank you.
        Mayor Williams. I want to take the opportunity as Mayor of
    our city and on behalf of the citizens of our city to also
    commend Senator Levin and Senator Durbin for coming in here
    today and pledging their support for an important effort.
        As you mentioned, more than 200 years ago, the founders of
    this country fought a revolution to end the tyranny of taxation
    without representation and I have no doubt that the authors of
    the Constitution did not intend to force almost 600,000
    Americans to live under that same tyranny in the 21st Century.
    In fact, this body was established to create and amend laws as
    the needs of the people required. We are here today because a
    need has arisen, because you are vested with a power and a
    responsibility to make sure all Americans can exercise their
    rights.
        Full voting representation in Congress is a fundamental
    right held by every citizen of the District of Columbia. You
    have acted on behalf of disenfranchised women. You have acted
    on behalf of disenfranchised African Americans, Latinos, Native
    Americans, and other groups, and we now ask that you act on
    behalf of disenfranchised citizens of our Nation's capital and
    pass the No Taxation Without Representation Act.
        As Mayor of this city, I have had the privilege of
    representing our city across this country and abroad, from
    school children visiting our monuments to athletes
    participating in the Olympics, from diplomatic delegations
    working here in the District to State and local elected
    officials meeting in Washington. I have been amazed at the
    myths and misconceptions held about the power and status of the
    District of Columbia and they mirror your remarks, Mr.
    Chairman. I would like to share just a few.
        The Federal Government completely funds the District
    Government. That is a myth. There are no real people living in
    Washington, perhaps only pundits and Beltway Bandits.
    Washington residents already have full voting rights and
    complete self-government. Another one, Washington residents all
    have a second address and, therefore, representation in another
    State, and so what is the problem?
        To be clear about many of these and other myths, you should
    know that the budget for the District of Columbia is funded
    primarily by the people who live and do business in this city.
    Yes, the District receives some Federal funding, virtually the
    same amount as other cities our size receive from the Federal
    Government, but not nearly at the same level required to ensure
    the consistent delivery of essential services and certainly not
    commensurate with that provided by other nations to their
    capitals.
        Almost three-fourths of our operating budget comes from our
    local tax revenue, property tax, income tax, and business
    taxes. In fact, our residents are some of the most heavily
    taxed people in the country. I am not proud of that and I do
    not advertise that too much, but it is a fact.
        There are more than 572,000 real people living within ten
    square miles known as the District of Columbia. These are
    people who attend school, who work, who raise families, who pay
    taxes, both Federal and local, and it has been mentioned in
    testimony and in your comments, Senator, that we are the second
    highest Federal tax-paying citizens per capita in the country.
        It has been mentioned we serve in the Armed Forces, and in
    many parts of the District, we live on fixed incomes. And while
    a few of our residents come here and serve in the Federal
    Government and maintain a permanent address elsewhere, the vast
    majority do not. These are people who love their country, and
    in the wake of September 11 are keenly aware of what can be
    demanded of them during a national emergency.
        Washington residents were granted the right to vote for
    President in 1961, but we do not have full representation in
    the House and Senate. When legislation that directly affects
    our lives is drafted, debated, and adopted, we have virtually
    no voice in the process. Our residents elect a Mayor and 13
    members of the Council, a Chair of the Council, but every local
    law and every local budgetary decision made by this elected
    body must be approved by Congress, and this Council passes an
    endless series of emergency acts and temporary acts, and I see
    the enormous amount of paperwork to keep our government going
    while waiting for Congress to officially approve our
    government's action.
        No other jurisdiction in the country must submit its local
    budget to an outside authority elected by people from other
    States. No other jurisdiction must wait to invest funds in new
    programs while Members of Congress decide what is appropriate
    for the District.
        Over the years, the District of Columbia evolved into a
    living, breathing city, a city where streets need to be paved,
    homes built, children educated, trash and snow removed, trees
    trimmed, people protected from crime, and homes protected from
    fire. It became a city that needed to provide services to all
    of its residents and businesses, including those who live at
    1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and those who work and act as
    legislators on Capitol Hill.
        I am proud of the progress the District has demonstrated in
    the last several years. Last week, the Labor Department
    reported that the District has seen job growth in the last few
    months while surrounding jurisdictions have experienced a
    growth in unemployment. Over the past 5 years, we have balanced
    the budget, maintained the cash surplus, improved our credit
    rating, and met every goal set out by Congress to demonstrate
    the ability to self-govern. The District is on the verge of
    achieving its full potential as the heart of a vibrant region
    in a global economy, but to do so, we must be put on a level
    playing field.
        As you know, Senator, and all of us know, Webster defines
    democracy well as, I quote, ``A government in which the supreme
    power is vested in the people and exercise by them directly or
    indirectly through a system of representation, usually
    involving periodically held free elections.'' I say to the
    Committee, why are the people of the Nation's capital excluded
    from this system of representation?
        Well, the lack of voting rights is an economic issue in the
    District of Columbia. While the Congress has the power to
    impose restrictions on our city and limit our ability to tax,
    we will never have a level playing field. More than 50 percent
    of our land cannot be taxed. Income earned in the city commutes
    to Maryland and Virginia every day. We export dollars out of
    our city. State functions such as road construction, motor
    vehicle administration, and special education must be funded on
    the city's tax base. How can we continue to grow and be
    fiscally responsible when the city leaders have no authority
    over their own financial resources and no representation to
    negotiate with Congressional members?
        If the District had full voting rights, our representation
    could work towards greater parity for District residents and
    greater parity for the District with other jurisdictions across
    this region and the country.
        The lack of voting rights is a matter of justice in the
    District of Columbia. The inability of District residents to
    vote for voting Representatives and Senators in Congress
    violates our rights to equal protection and to a republican
    form of government.
        In the court case for full voting rights, Alexander v.
    Daley, the court did not determine that District citizens
    should not have voting rights. It determined that the courts
    lacked the power under the U.S. Constitution to require
    Congress to grant such rights. Congress has the opportunity and
    the power to correct this injustice by taking action now to
    guarantee justice by granting the citizens of the District
    their full voting rights.
        Finally, the lack of voting rights is a civil rights
    violation in the District of Columbia. African Americans and
    women and others have fought for and died for the right to
    vote, yet here in the capital of democracy lives one of the
    largest blocks of disenfranchised voters in the world. District
    residents fight for freedom abroad and pay more than $2 billion
    a year in Federal income taxes at home as the world's leading
    democracy. It is unacceptable that the United States does not
    grant voting rights to the residents, to the citizens of this
    capital city.
        The issue of District voting rights has resonated across
    the country. A number of local and national organizations have
    taken actions in support of full voting rights for our city,
    and I want to commend Shadow Representative Ray Brown for his
    leadership and support in this effort. Such organizations
    include the National League of Cities, the National Conference
    of Black Mayors, and the Executive Committee of the U.S.
    Conference of Mayors, which have all passed resolutions or
    adopted policy positions in support of the District.
        In addition, resolutions from cities across the country
    supporting voting rights have been adopted by the cities of
    Chicago, Philadelphia, Cleveland, Baltimore, Los Angeles, New
    Orleans, and San Francisco, and as you have mentioned, Mr.
    Chairman, national polls indicate that a huge majority of
    people across the country support full representation for
    District residents. I ask that these resolutions be entered
    into the record of this Committee hearing.\1\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ Memorandum and Resolutions submitted by Mayor Williams appear
    in the Appendix on pages 89 through 109.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Chairman Lieberman. Without objection.
        Mayor Williams. Once again, Mr. Chairman, I commend you for
    your leadership in general, your support for this city in
    voting rights in particular, and as always, I am ready,
    willing, and able to answer any questions you may have. Thank
    you for the opportunity to testify.
        Chairman Lieberman. Thank you, Mayor. We will have some
    questions. Thanks for describing not only the cause and the
    principle here, but the practical realities of the interaction,
    including the additional fiscal responsibilities placed on the
    city as a result of the presence of the Federal Government here
    and how that adds to the injustice of no voting representation.
        Chairwoman Cropp, thank you for being here. I look forward
    to your testimony now.

     TESTIMONY OF HON. LINDA W. CROPP,\2\ CHAIRMAN, COUNCIL OF THE
                          DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

        Ms. Cropp. Thank you very much, Chairman Lieberman. Good
    afternoon. Let me begin by thanking you, Mr. Chairman, for
    sponsoring legislation and holding this public hearing on the
    denial of voting representation in Congress for the 600,000
    American citizens who live in the District of Columbia.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ The prepared statement of Ms. Cropp with an attachment appears
    in the Appendix on page 53.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        This is the first Senate hearing on District voting rights
    in an extremely long time, so we very much appreciate this
    historic opportunity to urge you and your colleagues to use the
    power that you have to bring democracy to the Nation's capital.
    I am joined today with Adrian Fenty, another member of the
    Council.
        Attached to my testimony is a resolution and report adopted
    unanimously by the D.C. Council earlier this month supporting
    the No Taxation Without Representation Act that has been
    introduced by you, Senator, and Senator Feingold in the Senate
    and Congresswoman Norton in the House. The Council's findings
    in the resolution essentially mirror the findings contained in
    the No Taxation Without Representation Act that I would like to
    highlight here.
        For far too long, District citizens have been invited to
    dinner, but we have not been allowed to eat. As you know, U.S.
    citizens residing in Washington, DC, have no voting
    representation in the House and no elected voice in the Senate.
    This was not always the case. For approximately 10 years after
    ratification of the U.S. Constitution and selection of the
    Federal District, residents of the District of Columbia were
    allowed to vote for Members of Congress. In 1800, Congress
    voted to end this practice and thereby disenfranchised District
    residents.
        Throughout the past two centuries, there have been various
    efforts to restore the franchise. There are many reasons full
    voting rights should be restored, but each evolves from a
    single principle: The right to vote is a fundamental principle
    of our democracy. Americans throughout the Nation agree, or
    would agree if they knew. Many, as you have heard from our
    Mayor, just do not believe that we do not have the right to
    vote. I have encountered them on numerous occasions.
        A survey conducted in October 1999 found that 72 percent of
    the respondents supported full voting rights in the House and
    Senate for District residents. The same poll showed high levels
    of support across party lines. Polling conducted a month later
    found that 55 percent of college graduates who were registered
    to vote were unaware that District citizens do not have
    Congressional voting representation.
        You have heard these facts before, but until there is a
    remedy to the fundamental injustice of our subordinate status,
    they must be reiterated. The residents of the District of
    Columbia are the only Americans who pay Federal income taxes
    but are denied voting representation in the House and the
    Senate. The District of Columbia is second per capital in
    income taxes paid to the Federal Government. The District is
    the source of over $2 billion in Federal taxes each year, an
    amount per capita greater than 49 other States. Yet, we have no
    say in Congress in how these dollars are spent.
        More District citizens have died in wars protecting the
    Nation than have the citizens of 20 other States. Congress has
    the exclusive right to declare war, and again, we have no say
    in this decision. The impeachment proceedings in Congress a few
    years ago highlighted the glaring anomaly of our lack of vote
    on an issue of removing from office the President of the United
    States whom we had a vote to elect.
        The United States is the only democracy in the world in
    which residents of the capital city are denied representation
    in the national legislature equal to that enjoyed by their
    Federal citizens. The denial of voting representation in
    Congress locks District residents not only out of our national
    legislature, but also out of what is a structural sense of our
    State legislature, a legislature that has extraordinary
    approval authority over all of the District's local legislation
    and all of the District's locally raised dollars, as
    articulated earlier by the Mayor.
        We who are elected representatives of the District's
    citizens are reminded daily, sometimes painfully, of the
    exclusive jurisdiction that Congress exercises over the
    District of Columbia pursuant to Article I, Section 8 of the
    United States Constitution. We believe that this same broad
    jurisdiction provides Congress with the constitutional
    authority to enact a bill by simple majority to restore
    Congressional voting rights to District citizens. The Congress
    and the Constitution treat the District as a State for hundreds
    of purposes, whether they are Federal benefits, burdens, or
    rights. Why not the most precious and fundamental right in a
    free and democratic society, the right to vote?
        The denial of District citizens the right to Congressional
    voting representation is the last unbreached frontier of civil
    and human rights in America. As the United States rightly tries
    to be a model and a defender of democracy around the world, we
    implore you to find a remedy to remove this inexcusable
    hypocrisy of democracy denied in our Nation's capital.
        We have tried in the past and without success thus far to
    obtain Congressional voting rights through a constitutional
    amendment, through a Statehood bill, through litigation. The
    Supreme Court, while sympathetic, has essentially stated that
    it is Congress where the remedy to this problem must be
    resolved.
        As we ask the Senate to take action this year to remedy our
    lack of voting representation in Congress, we also request that
    you take favorable action as soon as possible on legislative
    and budget autonomy for the District of Columbia. District
    residents have been invited to dinner but we have not been
    allowed to eat. D.C. residents are hungry for democracy. D.C.
    residents are starving for voting representation in Congress.
    It is past time for Congress not only to talk about the wrongs
    around the world regarding voting rights. It is now time to
    correct this injustice to the citizens of the District of
    Columbia. It is time for the plate of democracy to be passed to
    the citizens of the District of Columbia.
        Mr. Chairman, thank you again so very much for this
    opportunity to testify before the Committee today. As always,
    the Council looks forward to working with you in partnership to
    right this injustice.
        Chairman Lieberman. Thank you. Thank you for that excellent
    statement and I look forward to working with you and the
    Council, as well.
        The final witness on this panel is Statehood Senator
    Florence H. Pendleton. I do want to point out that, as I
    mentioned earlier, Senator Pendleton is the senior member of
    the delegation, but it is a delegation, I should state for the
    record and for those who do not know, that has been elected by
    the citizens. That is, Senator Pendleton, Senator Strauss, and
    Representative Ray Brown have been elected by the citizens of
    the District of Columbia to come before Congress and advocate
    the cause of Statehood. We are honored to have you here and
    look forward to your testimony now.

     TESTIMONY OF HON. FLORENCE H. PENDLETON, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
                           STATEHOOD SENATOR

        Ms. Pendleton. Thank you so very much. Good afternoon,
    Senator Lieberman and Members of your Committee. It is so good
    that you are having this meeting today. It is a different kind
    of notice from the one I have had before. We have had Statehood
    meetings before. However, things have been tossed out and we
    are not applying for Statehood but we are asking for voting
    rights.
        No Taxation Without Representation is noteworthy because we
    are simply asking not to pay taxes unless we vote. The request
    is simple, no taxation without representation, and the answer
    can be straightforward. I would like to see the Senator or the
    member of the House of Representatives advocate that the people
    he represents are not entitled to representation and then give
    up his seat. You must not sit to represent a government and say
    that one is equal and one is unequal.
        All of the elected officials of the District of Columbia
    must speak with one voice on behalf of the residents of the
    District of Columbia. United we stand. I do not want to leave
    our children or our children's children in bondage. Let us put
    differences aside and work for the benefit of the people.
    Working together, we can unite the people, ignite their power,
    and focus their strength on the goal of freedom now.
        District residents have been paying Federal income taxes
    since 1943 and that was before the end of World War II. Our
    time has come. We must come out with a solid, united front for
    democracy, and the time is now.
        We must not take the crimes of persecution, enslavement,
    hatred, and greed from the 19th Century into the 21st Century.
    These evils have caused us pain and they have almost ruined our
    voting rights. We must lift up humanity and seize the day.
        Failing to do your duty, will you be able to stand and face
    the people, speak to the Congress on behalf of those citizens
    who have declared their desire to vote? If not you, who? And if
    not now, when?
        We must move this ship of freedom together if we are to be
    successful in combatting the oppression facing us here in the
    District of Columbia. The voting rights of the District of
    Columbia are begging for us to come forward, and forward we
    have come. It is not everything, but it is something and voting
    for this is what we want and any no vote should give up his
    seat.
        I sincerely thank you for having this session and I
    certainly do appreciate being able to speak.
        Chairman Lieberman. Thank you, Senator Pendleton. Thanks
    very much.
        The three of you anticipated most of the questions I wanted
    to ask in your opening statements, but let me ask this. As I
    listened to the first panel and the three of you speak, it
    really does seem to me that it would be hard for somebody to
    make a case against the principle here and the reality, the
    fact that District residents do not have voting rights, and,
    therefore, the concerns I presume that make this a more
    difficult effort for Congresswoman Norton and me and others are
    political, worries about how people would vote.
        So I want to give you, those of the three of you who wish
    to respond, an opportunity to respond to that political concern
    about the political result of voting rights here in the
    District as opposed to the principle, and then if you have
    heard other arguments that I am not considering, as they used
    to say to us in law school, against voting rights, whether you
    would share those with us, and if you care to provide the
    argument against.
        Mayor, do you want to begin with a response to either of
    those questions?
        Mayor Williams. I have often heard as we have traveled
    around that full voting rights for the District might result in
    tilting the balance politically one way or the other. But I
    would agree with other Members of the Committee who have
    mentioned that the rub in our Constitution is that we honor
    fundamental rights regardless of the consequences. We honor
    fundamental rights regardless of how difficult it is to honor
    those rights.
        The Fourth Amendment is often honored in very difficult
    circumstances, the Sixth Amendment, we know, in very difficult
    circumstances, a franchise in very difficult circumstances that
    we have seen as recently as a couple of years ago.
        So I think the fact that the electoral balance might be
    tipped one way or the other is at, I think, the point of our
    whole Declaration of Independence and Constitution and Pantheon
    of Rights. It is not that it is the province of elected
    officials to decide. It is the province of citizens to decide.
        While it is not our job to give all the arguments against
    voting rights for the city, you often hear the argument that
    Congress has plenary authority over the District and the
    Constitution is settled, and I would say two things to that.
    There are many individuals or organizations, sectors, if you
    will, that have power in the Constitution. Within our
    constitutional framework, the exercise of those powers always
    has to be balanced against and in the context of the overall
    framework of the Constitution.
        For example, the President has executive power under the
    Constitution, but certainly he has to or she has to exercise
    that executive power with due cognizance of the rights of
    others in the Constitution, rights specified in the
    Constitution, and certainly the fundamental right of the
    people.
        So the fact that Congress has power over the District to me
    does not, in my mind, excuse it of the responsibility to
    exercise that authority in the overall context of our
    Constitution based on principles of democracy.
        The second thing you often hear is, well, it is in the
    Constitution and that is that. As soon as our Constitution was
    written, it was already being amended with a Bill of Rights. If
    the Constitution had not been amended, I would not be sitting
    here as Mayor. Many of us would not be sitting here. So we have
    often, as you mentioned in President Washington's quotation,
    the Constitution was not written as a shrine before which we
    all worship but as a living, breathing document based on the
    fundamental rights of citizens.
        Chairman Lieberman. Well said. The third panel is composed
    of some legal experts and I might ask them to speak to the
    constitutional history here, but I believe I recall that the
    fact is that the District Clause was first inserted in the
    Constitution after the State of Philadelphia failed to protect
    the Continental Congress from protesting Revolutionary War
    veterans. Is that your recollection?
        Mayor Williams. That is my recollection, and as I often
    tell people, a perverse thing has happened. In order to
    insulate the Congress from parochial interests, exactly the
    inverse or converse has happened. The District is now exposed
    to the whim and the fancies and the predilections of 535 people
    often acting as a city council for the District.
        Chairman Lieberman. I guess I would add, being part of
    protecting Congress from any number of protesting groups that
    come here in a given year, bearing the cost of that protection,
    as a matter of fact.
        Chairwoman Cropp, do you want to add at all to the
    questions that I have asked?
        Ms. Cropp. Let me just concur with what the Mayor stated.
    But I think in addition to that, it is very clear that the
    intent was not to deny the District citizens the right to vote.
    The clear intent was for District citizens to have the right to
    vote and that is why we were franchised initially.
        Chairman Lieberman. Right.
        Ms. Cropp. As stated by the Mayor, we have erasers on
    pencils in order to correct mistakes, and if, in fact, anyone
    thinks that it was a mistake, then it is time to use that
    eraser and correct this very basic and fundamental principle
    for the District citizens.
        We have an opportunity, even if the Federal Government
    believes that it ought to protect itself, to still protect the
    Federal enclave in the format of Federal buildings and keep
    that sacrosanct, while at the same time not disenfranchising
    600,000 other people who make the District of Columbia their
    home and who are citizens.
        I believe that the court case that was just before the
    Supreme Court really spelled out some very excellent legal
    principles. I am not a lawyer so I cannot address them as they
    did, but it is just common sense. My grandmother said when I
    went to college, she was very thrilled and she hoped that it
    was just one of many degrees that I may have, but always
    remember, if you do not have common sense, none of the degrees
    will matter to a hill of beans.
        Chairman Lieberman. That is right.
        Ms. Cropp. And it is just common sense that the District
    citizens should not be disenfranchised, and particularly when
    the intent initially was for us to have voting representation.
        Chairman Lieberman. Senator Pendleton, would you like to
    add anything?
        Ms. Pendleton. I would just like to say that I have not
    heard any persons say too much against this particular bill.
    Now, the Statehood bill, yes. This bill, for just voting
    rights, no, because, in fact, there are those who say that this
    bill will pass. The other bill you had will not. So they are
    thinking that this bill, this voting bill, this bill to just
    vote, will pass and that those persons who are for the
    Constitution and for saying what we are going to do and
    everything, that one bill is for now and, therefore, we should
    just push and push all of our efforts into the voting bill and
    let it rest.
        Chairman Lieberman. Thank you. I thank the three of you
    very much for joining this cause, for articulating it very
    effectively, and also for giving real texture to the
    relationship between the Federal Government and the Government
    of the Capital City and the Capital City, which just to me, in
    practical terms, strengthens the argument for voting rights. I
    appreciate your being here.
        Mayor Williams. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Ms. Cropp. Thank you.
        Ms. Pendleton. Thank you.
        Chairman Lieberman. Thank you very much.
        We will now call the third panel, Wade Henderson, Executive
    Director, Leadership Conference on Civil Rights; Adam Kurland,
    Professor of Law, Howard University School of Law; and Jamin
    Raskin, a Professor at Washington College of Law, American
    University.
        Gentlemen, thanks for being here. I appreciate the
    opportunity to hear from your experience and expertise on the
    subject before us.
        Mr. Henderson, you are a familiar, and in this case that is
    a positive statement, face and voice in the halls of Congress
    and always a very effective one on behalf of the Constitution
    and the basic rights that define our Nation, much more than its
    borders do, so we look forward to your testimony now.

    TESTIMONY OF WADE HENDERSON,\1\ EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, LEADERSHIP
                       CONFERENCE ON CIVIL RIGHTS

        Mr. Henderson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you
    especially for the opportunity to testify this afternoon on
    voting representation in Congress for the citizens of the
    District of Columbia.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Henderson appears in the Appendix
    on page 62.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        My name is Wade Henderson and I am privileged to be the
    Executive Director of the Leadership Conference on Civil
    Rights. The Leadership Conference consists of more than 180
    national organizations representing persons of color, women,
    children, labor unions, individuals with disabilities, older
    Americans, major religious groups, gays and lesbians, civil
    liberties and human rights organizations. Together, over 50
    million Americans belong to organizations that comprise the
    Leadership Conference on Civil Rights.
        The Leadership Conference strongly supports efforts to give
    citizens of the District of Columbia full voting representation
    in the U.S. Congress. At the outset of this hearing, I want to
    commend you, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership on this
    important issue and on the introduction of your bill, S. 603,
    the No Taxation Without Representation Act. The Leadership
    Conference fully supports this bill, along with its counterpart
    in the House of Representatives, introduced, as you noted, by
    Representative Eleanor Holmes Norton.
        The right to vote is fundamental in our democracy. The
    struggle to obtain voting rights for all Americans has long
    been at the heart of the fight for civil rights. The Congress
    has enacted many important laws over the years protecting and
    enhancing the right to vote, such as the 13th, 14th, and 15th
    Amendments to the Constitution, the Voting Rights Act of 1965,
    and the National Voter Registration Act of 1993.
        Your bill, Mr. Chairman, continues the distinguished path
    of providing the full measure of the right to vote for all
    Americans. It is a top priority on the legislative agenda of
    the Leadership Conference.
        As you have noted, Mr. Chairman, voting is the language of
    democracy. Without it, the citizens of the District are the
    silent voice in the wilderness, spectators to democracy, right
    in the literal shadow of the very governing institutions that
    serve as a shining beacon to the rest of the world. This is not
    right, this is not fair to have two distinct classes of
    citizens, those of the 50 States and those of the District of
    Columbia.
        Now, the Leadership Conference holds as one of its guiding
    tenets that all citizens of the United States must be treated
    equally under the law. We have long supported the civil rights
    movement here in our Nation's capital, championing the voting
    rights for the citizens of the District and the popular
    election of local officials.
        The tragedy of this past September 11 terrorist attacks on
    our Nation pointed out the importance of the District of
    Columbia and the paradox of denying D.C. residents the full
    measure of participation in our government. On that terrible
    day, terrorists struck at our financial center in New York City
    and our government center here in Washington. The attack was
    one on all Americans, without regard to race, color, religion,
    sex, national origin, disability or sexual orientation, and
    Americans from around the Nation opened their hearts with
    unparalleled generosity to help the victims of this tragedy.
        The citizens of the District of Columbia were no exception.
    D.C. residents were part of the first responders to the
    Pentagon attack. Members of the District of Columbia National
    Guard were among the first to be called up to serve our Nation
    during this time of crisis. And, sadly, D.C. had its share of
    victims in the September 11 attack. Yet D.C. residents have no
    voting representation in the very government they seek to
    preserve and defend.
        Now, the Leadership Conference believes it is now time to
    move forward on this important legislation under discussion
    today. Residents of the District dutifully comply with their
    civic responsibilities and obligations under our democratic
    form of government. They pay taxes and they serve in our Armed
    Forces. And yet residents of the District are blatantly denied
    and deprived many of the essential rights and privileges of
    citizenship enjoyed by all other Americans. This issue,
    therefore, is one of simple justice and fairness.
        Now, we have noted, of course, that we pay income tax and
    that we serve, and you have noted all of this, as well, and as
    you referred in just your past comments, the fact that the
    District has been denied voting representation has not always
    been the case. Before the District was established in 1800,
    residents of the City of Washington were able to vote for
    Representatives in Congress as either citizens of Maryland or
    Virginia. There is no prohibition on restoring voting
    representation in Congress for the citizens of the District of
    Columbia.
        This issue has long had bipartisan support in Congress and
    I would hope that it would do so again today. In 1978, both the
    Senate and the House passed a constitutional amendment to grant
    full representation to D.C. residents, and although that
    amendment failed to be ratified by the required 38 States, it
    was supported by many prominent Republicans and Democrats, and
    in my written testimony, Mr. Chairman, I note various
    individuals, from Senator Bob Dole to President Richard Nixon
    to Senator Robert Byrd, among others, who have noted the
    importance of voting representation for the District.
        Before I conclude, Mr. Chairman, let me address the issue
    of taxation without representation. Some will argue that if
    this bill were enacted, it would turn the District of Columbia
    into a haven for tax dodgers, and certainly nothing could be
    further from the truth. This bill is aimed at achieving full
    voting representation in Congress for the citizens of the
    District, and as we have noted, they do pay more taxes and do
    all those things that are required by citizens of the Nation.
    Its title, that is the No Taxation Without Representation, of
    course, harkens back to the historic foundations of American
    democracy.
        This bill is aimed at moving the Congress to take positive
    action on this issue but does not, in fact, create voting
    representation in Congress for Representatives of the District
    of Columbia. The bill merely makes clear that until full voting
    representation is achieved, residents of the District should be
    treated more like their counterparts in the territories of the
    United States who do not pay Federal taxes.
        While the Leadership Conference supports providing full
    voting representation for the citizens of the District, we also
    believe that until this happens, it is important that District
    residents should be treated for tax purposes like their
    similarly situated counterparts in the territories of the
    United States.
        Since the attacks on the United States in September, we
    have been eloquently advocating to the international community
    for democracy abroad, and rightfully so. But it is now time to
    preach democracy at home, as well. We urge Congress to pass
    your bill, Mr. Chairman, and to bring democracy home to the
    citizens of the District of Columbia, and we should give those
    who live within the shadow of the capitol the basic right to
    enjoy full voting representation in the Congress of the United
    States. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you
    today.
        Chairman Lieberman. Thanks, Mr. Henderson, for a very
    thoughtful statement. I look forward to asking some questions
    afterward.
        Professor Kurland, welcome. I look forward to your
    statement.

       TESTIMONY OF ADAM H. KURLAND,\1\ PROFESSOR OF LAW, HOWARD
                        UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW

        Mr. Kurland. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for inviting
    me to testify before this proceeding today. This hearing is a
    welcome and constructive step because the issue is, I believe,
    now being debated in the appropriate forum. However, Congress
    cannot by simple legislation grant D.C. citizens voting rights
    in Congress. A constitutional amendment is required.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Kurland appears in the Appendix
    on page 68.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        The makeup of the Federal legislature is an essential
    ingredient of our federalism. Every school child is, or should
    be, familiar with the story of the Constitutional Convention
    and the so-called Great Compromise which resulted in each
    State's proportional representation in the lower House and
    equal representation in the Senate, and most historians agree
    that without this compromise, the work of the Constitutional
    Convention would never have been completed. In addition, the
    importance of this compromise can also be gleaned from the
    final clause in Article V of the Constitution, which concerns
    the constitutional amendment process, and it says, ``that no
    State without its consent shall be deprived of its equal
    suffrage in the Senate.''
        Representation in the Federal legislature is defined by
    clear, unambiguous constitutional requirements. The
    Constitution provides that the Senate of the United States
    shall be composed of two Senators from each State. It also
    requires that the House of Representatives be composed of
    members chosen by the people of the several States and that
    each member of Congress be an inhabitant of the State from
    which he shall be chosen.
        The District of Columbia, or in constitutional parlance,
    the seat of the Government of the United States, as it is
    referred to in Article I, Section 8, Clause 17, I believe, as
    presently constituted is not a State. Therefore, as presently
    constituted, the citizens of the District are not entitled to
    representation in the House or the Senate. The only way the
    District as presently constituted can achieve full voting
    representation in the House of Representatives and in the
    Senate is by constitutional amendment.
        The Statehood alternative, which raises other
    constitutional issues, is discussed in my written testimony and
    obviously is not part of the proposed bill before the Senate
    now.
        The controlling constitutional principle must be
    emphasized. Congress has a critical but non-exclusive role to
    play in the political process necessary to achieve any change
    in D.C.'s present status of no representation in the Federal
    legislature. Congress cannot by simple legislation provide the
    present District of Columbia citizens with voting rights. Such
    legislation would be unconstitutional.
        Legal arguments have been made that a variety of
    constitutional principles require that District citizens
    receive Congressional representation. Those arguments have been
    uniformly rejected by the courts. Moreover, any attempt to rely
    on Congress's enforcement powers to legislate pursuant to
    Section 5 of the 14th Amendment is also, in my view, misplaced.
    The present lack of D.C. representation in the Federal
    legislature is a feature of American federalism, is part of the
    current constitutional structure, and does not violate equal
    protection, due process, or any other constitutional principle.
        It is true that Congress in other contexts often treats the
    District ``as if it were a State'' for a variety of legislative
    purposes, principally for funding allocation of various Federal
    programs pursuant to Congress's Article I powers. However,
    Congress does not possess the legislative authority to decree
    the District a State for the purposes of providing or
    allocating representation in the national legislature.
        With respect to the proposed legislation to either grant
    the District representation or to make it a tax-free haven,
    exempting D.C. residents from taxes until representation is
    achieved, that particular proposal is flawed for a couple of
    reasons. First, the either/or tradeoff has essentially been
    acknowledged as, basically, a well-placed rhetorical device,
    but the proposal has very little chance of ever being enacted.
        Second, the ``taxation without representation'' slogan is
    actually inapposite and has been conclusively refuted in many
    other fora over the last several decades. In short, District
    residents are simply not victims of a far-off imperial power
    imposing taxes selectively as a means of economic exploitation.
        Third, the either/or tradeoff is based on a faulty legal
    premise because Congress, in any event, does not possess the
    unilateral authority to enact legislation conferring D.C.
    voting rights.
        And fourth, despite Mr. Henderson's comments, it would not
    make the District a tax evader haven or a tax dodge haven, but
    if the District was set up as a tax-free zone, there are many
    Americans, and I am quoting Professor Raskin, who even kind of
    half-jokingly but half-seriously has commented that a lot of
    Americans do not like taxation with representation, let alone
    taxation without representation, that if the District were made
    a tax-free haven, it would be very alluring, if that is the
    proper word, so that people might want to move in and say they
    would rather not pay Federal income taxes than vote. And we can
    laugh about that and that obviously deprecates the principle,
    and I do not mean to make light of it, Mr. Chairman, but given
    the low voter turnout in many elections, it cannot be just
    laughed off as a joke.
        Upon two-thirds of the vote of both Houses of Congress,
    Congress can propose a constitutional amendment to be submitted
    to the States for ratification. Ratification of a proposed
    constitutional amendment requires approval of three-fourths of
    the State legislatures or three-fourths of specifically called
    State constitutional conventions. A proposed constitutional
    amendment could provide for the District to elect a member of
    the House only or could provide for Senate representation,
    either with one or two Senators.
        A proposed constitutional amendment to provide the District
    with representation in the Federal legislature failed in 1978,
    as has been mentioned several times. It would seem to me that
    if equal voting rights is the goal sought to be achieved, that
    would seem to militate in favor of a proposal that the District
    receive proportional representation in the House and two U.S.
    Senators. Political reality must acknowledge that this formula
    would appear to guarantee two additional Democratic Senators
    for the foreseeable future.
        However, the body politic must demonstrate the ability to
    rise above partisan politics. President Bush has often said
    that political Washington too often focuses on what is good for
    a particular party instead of what is good for America. This
    issue actually provides all involved an opportunity to
    demonstrate that America both inside and outside of the beltway
    will do what is best for America.
        Upon two-thirds vote of both Houses of Congress, Congress
    should send a proposed constitutional amendment out to the
    States for ratification, or Congress could choose to sidestep
    their respective State legislatures altogether. Article V of
    the Constitution gives Congress the option of the means of
    ratification. Congress can choose to send the proposed
    amendment to State legislatures or to State constitutional
    conventions expressly convened to consider the sole issue of
    ratification of the proposed constitutional amendment.
        Congress clearly possesses the authority to propose a
    constitutional amendment to provide the District with voting
    rights for Federal elective office. Congress took an analogous
    path in 1960 when it submitted the 23rd Amendment to the States
    for ratification and thus provided for the District's
    participation in Presidential elections through the Electoral
    College, and I believe that constitutional amendment was
    ratified in less than a year.
        Just to conclude, there are three related points that I
    think warrant brief measure.
        Chairman Lieberman. You can take a moment or two to finish
    your statement. Go right ahead.
        Mr. Kurland. All right. Thank you. Three related points,
    then, warrant mention. One could argue that it is
    unconstitutional to provide voting rights in the Senate to a
    non-State entity such as the District of Columbia even by
    purported constitutional amendment. As noted above, the
    language that I set forth in Article V provides that no State
    without its consent shall be deprived of equal suffrage in the
    Senate. What exactly does that mean? It obviously has never
    been litigated.
        I do not advocate this position, but some have argued that
    it perhaps could imply that the constitutional provision
    concerning the make-up of the Senate is, in effect, unamendable
    and that it would take a unanimous vote of the States to ratify
    a constitutional amendment providing for D.C. voting rights as
    opposed to creating a new State. How such an amendment would be
    challenged if it were ratified by less than all of the States
    raises an interesting legal question, to say the least.
        Second, in a similar vein, one might argue that the
    inherent fabric of the Great Compromise includes the core
    principle that the citizens were represented in the House and
    the States as States are the only body that gets representation
    in the Senate. It is also undeniable that the founders rejected
    pure majoritarian democracy in the original makeup of the
    Constitution. Under that scenario, the District should get a
    House vote but no Senate vote.
        However, if one goes through the process of amending the
    Constitution today, the 18th Century principles should not be
    determinative. It is contrary to most of the modern equal
    voting rights principles that have evolved over the last half-
    century, notwithstanding some of the language in the Supreme
    Court decision of Bush v. Gore, which I am sure the Chairman is
    well familiar with.
        Chairman Lieberman. It rings familiar to me. It gives me a
    headache. [Laughter.]
        Mr. Kurland. Moreover, regardless of whether these above
    principles accurate reflect the original nature of the Union,
    the concept of a State as a distinct political entity apart
    from its citizens was substantially eroded, if not effectively
    eliminated, with the passage of the 17th Amendment in 1913,
    which provided for the direct election of Senators.
        Third, providing the District with only one Senate vote,
    which reflects another sort of compromise proposal that has
    been bantered about in the last 20 or 30 years, would actually
    abrogate the constitutional role of the Vice President to break
    ties. Although the Vice President has been called on to break
    ties on Senate votes infrequently throughout history, the Vice
    President's role as Senate tie-breaker is constitutionally
    significant and should not be eliminated as an unintended
    consequence of an apparently unrelated constitutional amendment
    that would provide for an odd number of Senators. And I also
    note that just, I believe, yesterday, Vice President Cheney
    cast a tie-breaking vote, so the situation is not simply one
    that academics fiddle with. In conclusion----
        Chairman Lieberman. We will have your whole statement
    printed in the record.
        Mr. Kurland. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The U.S. Conference
    of Mayors recently has come out in support of D.C. voting
    rights. This is a positive indication that the political
    process quest for D.C. voting rights has moved to the
    grassroots level State by State, where I believe it is
    absolutely constitutionally necessary to achieve D.C. voting
    rights in the Federal legislature. If the denial of D.C. voting
    rights in the national legislature is so antithetical to the
    democratic ideals which Americans cherish, a proposed
    constitutional amendment for D.C. voting rights should be able
    to win passage in three-fourths of the States easily, and to
    the extent that the statistics have been mentioned here
    concerning 80 percent in polls, that is consistent with that
    proposition.
        To the extent Americans wear democratic ideals more openly
    on our sleeves in the post-September 11 world, that should work
    in favor of passage of a constitutional amendment. We should
    not be afraid to ``have to resort to'' an inconvenient or even
    difficult constitutional amendment process. As Abraham Lincoln
    said, ``A majority held in restraint by constitutional checks
    and limitations is the only true sovereign of a free people.''
        Americans of all political parties should cherish and
    embrace the solemn challenge and opportunity to amend the
    Constitution. That is good not only in some grand civics lesson
    sense, not only good in some academic sense, but it is good for
    the citizens of the District of Columbia, the citizens of our
    Nation, and it is a shining example for the world. All who
    embrace D.C. voting rights should embrace the opportunity to
    make the case for constitutional reform to the people of the
    States. If 21st Century equal voting rights principles cannot
    prevail in the political marketplace of ideas over one small
    aspect of 18th Century structural principles of federalism,
    that would suggest to me that the American people still find
    contemporary value in those original constitutional federalism
    principles. If the poll numbers are correct, that should not be
    the case and the constitutional amendment process is the
    appropriate legal and constitutional way to achieve the result.
        Thank you very much for your time, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Lieberman. Thank you, Professor Kurland. So if I
    can paraphrase or summarize, you do support voting rights for
    District residents?
        Mr. Kurland. I support voting rights for District
    residents, yes.
        Chairman Lieberman. Right. But your argument is that can
    only be achieved by constitutional amendment?
        Mr. Kurland. I am--I should not say absolutely certain--I
    speak with a reasonable degree of certainty that any D.C.
    voting rights legislation passed by the Congress would be
    unconstitutional and that the voting rights representation in
    both Houses of Congress requires a constitutional amendment.
        Chairman Lieberman. Thank you.
        Professor Raskin, I do not want to push your testimony in a
    particular direction, but am I correct that you disagree with
    that contention?
        Mr. Raskin. Yes.
        Chairman Lieberman. And you will speak to it as part of
    your testimony?
        Mr. Raskin. Indeed, I will, and I will skip over several
    pages of moral outrage and get right to the constitutional
    analysis. [Laughter.]

    TESTIMONY OF JAMIN B. RASKIN,\1\ PROFESSOR, WASHINGTON COLLEGE
                    OF LAW, THE AMERICAN UNIVERSITY

        Mr. Raskin. I would like to say----
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The prepared statement of Mr. Raskin appears in the Appendix on
    page 79.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Chairman Lieberman. You can give us a little moral outrage.
    That is fine. [Laughter.]
        Mr. Raskin. Has there not been enough of that already?
    Actually, hearing your statement, Professor Kurland, gave me a
    little more moral outrage. I never yet heard before floated the
    proposition that a constitutional amendment could itself be
    unconstitutional. I thought that enemies of voting rights for
    D.C. were gathering the idea that you needed a constitutional
    amendment, and apparently for some of them, even that is not
    going to be enough. Presumably, an act of God or an amendment
    to the Bible would be required to make it happen.
        Mr. Kurland. I did not make that up.
        Mr. Raskin. I trust you did not.
        The founding idea of the country is that governments derive
    their just powers from the consent of the governed, as
    Jefferson put it in the Declaration of Independence, which was
    actually signed by several people who represented the land that
    the District of Columbia is now on.
        Our whole history has been a struggle to become a
    democracy, to transform the original republic of Christian,
    white, male, property owners over the age of 21 into what that
    great Republican President Abraham Lincoln called government of
    the people, by the people, and for the people.
        The purpose of the District Clause, as you noted, Senator
    Lieberman, and as I describe in detail in this law review
    article \2\ I will leave with you, was to assure the police
    security and military defense of the capital city, not to
    disenfranchise a large population of American citizens.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \2\ Article entitled ``Is This America? The District of Columbia
    and the Right to Vote,'' appears in the Appendix on page 111.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Chairman Lieberman. Talk about that a little bit in the
    historical context, if you would.
        Mr. Raskin. I would, indeed. It goes back to June 21, 1783,
    when the Continental Congress in Philadelphia was meeting in
    the Pennsylvania State House and there was an unruly band of
    disgruntled Revolutionary War soldiers who had not been paid
    yet and they had actually come to confront not Congress, but
    the Executive Council of Pennsylvania, which was meeting on the
    second floor as opposed to the first floor. When the
    Congressmen on the first floor appealed to the Executive
    Council upstairs to get the Pennsylvania militia to put down
    this brewing uprising outside, they refused to do it because
    they did not want a violent confrontation.
        Madison later called this incident disgraceful and used it
    during the constitutional debates to argue for the need for
    exclusive Federal jurisdiction over the seat of Federal
    Government. If you go look at the constitutional debates, you
    see references replete throughout the debates to this incident.
        Chairman Lieberman. But again, no comment there or no
    action regarding the voting rights of residents of the capital
    city.
        Mr. Raskin. No, and there were very few people--well, first
    of all, we did not even know where the new District was going
    to be. It had not been sited yet. And so all of the members of
    the Constitutional Convention were voting on it in sort of the
    original position, if you will, not knowing where it would be,
    and no one was thinking that voting rights would ever be at
    stake. After all, they had just fought a revolution against the
    principle ``no taxation without representation'' and it was
    assumed that would not happen in the new United States.
        And, indeed, when the Federal District was finally sited on
    the banks of the Potomac in 1791 with Congress accepting the
    lands from Maryland and Virginia, the residents continued to
    vote for a decade in Federal elections in Maryland or in
    Virginia and that only ended with the passage of the Organic
    Act in 1801. No one thought that it was unconstitutional.
        Now, the D.C. Corporation Counsel brought a lawsuit in
    1998, Alexander v. Daley, which pointed out this history and
    argued that the modern ``one person, one vote'' guarantee makes
    disenfranchisement unconstitutional and asked for restoration
    of the right to vote that was lost in 1801. By a two-to-one
    vote, the panel rejected the argument and found continuing
    permission for disenfranchisement in the structure of State-
    based representation, which was the argument that Professor
    Kurland was making.
        Nonetheless, the majority observed that there is ``a
    contradiction between the democratic ideals upon which this
    country was founded in the exclusion of District residents from
    Congressional representation.'' It remarked that none of the
    parties, including the Justice Department, ``contests the
    justice of the plaintiffs' cause.'' Yet the judges in the
    majority accepted the argument that the court was powerless to
    order a change and that any relief ``must come through the
    political process.''
        So the ball is in your court, and this could mean three
    things. First, Statehood, which is not on the table.
        Second, it might mean a statute conferring full voting
    rights and Congressional representation, a kind of Voting
    Rights Act for Washington, which is how I understand the No
    Taxation Without Representation bill submitted by Congresswoman
    Norton. Would it be constitutional, back to your question? To
    my mind, yes. Congress treats the District explicitly as though
    it were a State for 537 statutory purposes that I laboriously
    counted in my Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties law review
    article, from Federal taxation to military conscription to
    highway funds, education funds, national motor-voter, and so
    on.
        Chairman Lieberman. It counts as a State in the sense that
    it is treated in all those statutes--my question, I guess,
    answers itself--but as if it were a State?
        Mr. Raskin. There is a line in almost every statute which
    says, for the purposes of this statute, the District of
    Columbia shall be treated as though it were a State.
        Chairman Lieberman. So it is quite explicit. OK.
        Mr. Raskin. Moreover, Congress and the Supreme Court have
    treated District residents as residents of a State for
    constitutional purposes, from the Full Faith and Credit Clause
    to diversity jurisdiction under Article III, and there is an
    interesting litigation history to that. Originally, back in the
    1800's, the Supreme Court said that because Article III of the
    Constitution referred to diversity jurisdiction as applying to
    citizens among the States, it did not apply to D.C., and said
    the District residents could not get into Federal Court on
    diversity grounds. Congress passed a statute saying the
    District should be treated as a State for diversity purposes
    and the Supreme Court upheld that in the 20th Century. So why
    can Congress not treat the District as though it were a State
    for the even more fundamental purpose of representation?
        Now, some, like Professor Kurland, would invite us to
    believe that the District Clause gives Congress power to do
    anything it wants to people in the District except give them
    the right to vote, but this straightjacket approach undermines
    the idea of the Constitution as the charter of democratic
    sovereignty for we the people. This seminal phrase should
    include all of us, and certainly did include everyone who was
    on the lands that would become the District when the
    Constitution was written.
        As Justice Kennedy wrote in U.S. v. Thornton in 1995, the
    Congress is not a confederation of nations in which separate
    sovereigns are represented by appointed delegates, but is
    instead a body composed of the representatives of the people.
    So I have no problem in saying that Judge Louis Oberdorfer, who
    was the senior and dissenting judge on the three-judge panel in
    Alexander v. Daley, was right. Not only can Congress use its
    ample powers over the District to fully enfranchise the people,
    it must do so, and I am submitting with my statement a complete
    and very thoughtful legal analysis of this problem by two fine
    lawyers, Walter Smith and Elise Dietrich, who were co-counsel
    with me and the Corporation Counsel in Alexander v. Daley.
        Now, there are those like Professor Kurland who attack a
    D.C. Voting Rights Act as unconstitutional, and indeed, voting
    rights advocates should be sober about the fact that
    conservative views are more prevalent on the Supreme Court
    today than the progressive views of, say, Justices Marshall and
    Brennan.
        Senator Lieberman, you certainly do not need any tutorials
    about the distinctive judicial activism that has appeared
    recently on the Supreme Court to control elections and voting
    rights. Even looking at the broader canvas, a narrow majority
    in this court in the past few years has struck down in whole or
    in part the Gun Free School Zones Act, the Violence Against
    Women Act, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the Brady
    Handgun Violence Prevention Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act,
    the Low-Level Radioactive Waste Policy Act, and so on.
        How much faith should we have that the Court's majority
    would ultimately accept a D.C. Voting Rights Act as
    constitutional? I do not know. But all that you need to know as
    legislators is that you, like Thomas Jefferson, see the
    Constitution's legitimacy as resting on the consent of the
    governed and that you are convinced that Congress's powers over
    the District must be sufficient to effectuate not just the
    burdens but the rights of democratic citizenship.
        There is, finally, the possibility of a constitutional
    amendment treating the District as though it were a State for
    purposes of representation. A D.C. voting rights amendment, at
    least I thought until I heard Professor Kurland's testimony,
    would definitely be constitutional. It would require a two-
    thirds vote in both Houses and ratification by three-quarters
    of the States. As an amendment, it should be safe from judicial
    attack and would be more durable than a statute, which could be
    more easily repealed. Congresswoman Norton referred to her
    experience in voting in the Committee of the Whole, where she
    won, through really brilliant parliamentary persuasion, the
    right to vote, only to see it taken away a few years later when
    the House changed hands.
        Now, one strong argument for a constitutional amending
    strategy is that Washington can actually do America a big favor
    this way. I say this because as we saw in the 2000 election,
    the right to vote nationally is a vulnerable thing. As the
    Supreme Court's majority found in Bush v. Gore, ``there is no
    federally protected constitutional right to vote in
    Presidential elections.'' In this sense, we can see
    Washington's status as not just exceptionally egregious in its
    nearly categorical disenfranchisement, but as exemplary and
    illustrative of the weakness of the right to vote generally.
        Now, Congresswoman Norton herself is a professor of
    constitutional law who has done everything in her power to
    advance democracy for Washington within the existing
    constitutional structure and her perseverance is really
    astounding. I think she understands that the moment may come--
    it may not come, but it may come when current restrictive
    understandings of the Constitution become an obstacle to
    democracy and the amending strategy that was tried in 1978 may
    have to be revived. That moment has not necessarily arrived yet
    and there may, indeed, be the political will in Congress to
    pass the No Taxation Without Representation Act.
        The point she brings before America today is that,
    ultimately, what counts most is not the means, but the end,
    full voting rights and representation for everyone in
    Washington, which is the birthright of all American citizens,
    including her constituents.
        Chairman Lieberman. Thanks very much, Professor Raskin.
        Mr. Henderson, do you want to get into this debate between
    the two law professors on the question of the----
        Mr. Henderson. Well, I---- [Laughter.]
        Chairman Lieberman. Of course, the question is on whether,
    by statute, we can give voting rights to residents of the
    District.
        Mr. Henderson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also teach and am
    the Joseph Rowe Professor of Public Interest Law at the
    University of the District of Columbia Law School.
        Chairman Lieberman. Right. I apologize for not remember-
    ing----
        Mr. Henderson. No.
        Chairman Lieberman [continuing]. But I see you in your
    Director position.
        Mr. Henderson. Well, no, and it is a privilege to be here
    on behalf of the Leadership Conference, but I do want to pick
    up on one point that Professor Kurland noted.
        To assume that one is required to resort to a
    constitutional amendment, which is a process of last resort
    when all other permissible means of achieving the end result
    that we desire, in this instance, it seems to me is premature.
    Now, he does make note, and I found it interesting because it
    is seemingly contradictory on its face, on the one hand, he
    notes his support for the right to vote on behalf of District
    residents. He notes, however, the need to pursue a
    constitutional amendment, but then further in his remarks
    suggests that a constitutional amendment itself may prove to be
    unconstitutional and for that reason raises questions about the
    validity of that process as it relates to addressing the
    problem of achieving the right to vote on District residents.
        I thought the brilliance of the bill that both you and
    Congresswoman Norton have submitted is that it isolates first
    the fundamental principle at stake, which is providing the
    citizens of the District of Columbia their right to vote not so
    much as citizens of the District of Columbia, but rather
    hearkening back to their status as citizens of the United
    States and arguing first and foremost that because they are
    citizens of the United States, they have to be treated equally
    with other citizens of the United States. Now, it happens that
    they live in the District of Columbia, and yes, there is a
    District Clause in the Constitution that regulates certain
    functions as citizens of the District of Columbia. But it does
    not ultimately pertain to their status as citizens of the
    United States, nor does it preclude their right to vote in that
    capacity.
        It seems to us that the argument that you have made, which
    is first provide voting rights for the District, let us decide
    that question first, and then the issue of what form the rights
    will take does obviously have to be decided subsequently. But
    let us isolate that principle first. Let us have Congress vote
    on the determination of whether citizens of the District of
    Columbia in their role as citizens of the United States should
    have that right to vote is exactly the way to go.
        Second, what you have said is that until that voting right
    has been achieved, citizens of the District should be given
    status comparable to citizens in the territories, which is to
    say if you cannot vote with the full rights and privileges
    pertaining thereto, as with other citizens, you should be given
    an exemption from Federal taxation comparable to those
    residents who live in the territories, and it does seem to me
    that frames the issue in its most simple and yet its purest
    term, to allow voting rights to be conferred on behalf of the
    citizens.
        Now, in the event that Congress, or rather that the courts
    determine that is an unconstitutional grant of authority on
    behalf of District residents, the amendment process is still
    open and certainly the way has been cleared to determine that
    anything less than that would be inadequate. But as a first
    step, it seems to me that getting Congress to recognize the
    importance of the right, isolating that issue, asking Members
    of Congress to vote on the pure question of whether they
    believe District residents are entitled to the right to vote,
    and if they are not entitled to the right, or are entitled to
    the right to vote, should they have it or should they not in
    terms of the taxation that they pay it seems to me is the way
    to go.
        So I would suggest that while Professor Kurland's arguments
    may have some relevance and pertinence down the road, it is
    only after we have tried this first step, it seems to me,
    before we then get to the question of whether a constitutional
    amendment is required, and I see that, therefore, as a straw
    man, an issue that, in fact, has been raised as a barrier but,
    in fact, has never been legitimately tested in terms of its
    functions.
        Chairman Lieberman. I thank you for that statement. I
    cannot speak for Congresswoman Norton, but I say for myself, I
    do not think I could have said it better myself. The point is
    that we are trying to get our colleagues here to focus on the
    principle and the rights that go to residents of the District
    because they are citizens of the United States, and then to go
    to what the exact form of remedy is, if you will, or of
    granting those rights.
        But the other point, although we understand that,
    practically, residents of--we are not asking for no taxation
    nor is it a practical goal. On the other hand, the underlying
    principle that we are trying to elevate and educate our
    colleagues with is, in fact, validated by the reference you
    make and one other witness made to the territories, because
    there, the residents of territories do not have voting rights
    and they pay no taxes. So this is not just a rhetorical
    flourish based on the no taxation without representation
    history, but it, I think, underlines the principle that we are
    trying to make here.
        I regret that there is a vote on now and so I cannot stay
    as long as I would like, but Professor Kurland, do you want to
    give me a quick response to the comments of your colleagues on
    this panel? Now, I would say that two law professors are on
    either side.
        Mr. Kurland. It is not uncommon that in any forum on this
    issue I am always outnumbered. [Laughter.]
        But again, I am here doing, I believe, a civic duty in
    raising legitimate constitutional legal issues. I have no stake
    in this one way or another. It is only when I am with Professor
    Raskin that I get castigated as a conservative, which I think I
    am not. I mean, I am a registered Democrat. I voted for
    Presidential electors for Lieberman and Gore in the State of
    Maryland proudly. [Laughter.]
        Mr. Kurland. Recognizing that I had no direct vote----
        Chairman Lieberman. My respect for your judgment is
    improving, increasing. [Laughter.]
        Mr. Kurland. But what is important is that while it might
    be easy to kind of try to marginalize the constitutional issues
    I raised, it is done in manners that, I respectfully submit, is
    really not intellectually accurate, and let me just make a
    couple of brief points because I know we are short on time.
        The abomination of slavery was not taken out of the
    Constitution by Civil War. It required a constitutional
    amendment. The women's right to vote required a constitutional
    amendment. D.C.'s ability to cast electoral votes for
    President, constitutional amendment. The District to be treated
    even temporarily as a territory, well, the District gets to
    vote for President, your three electoral votes. But if the No
    Taxation Without Representation, if the argument is to be just
    like the territories, that would unravel a variety of other
    legal issues where the District is treated differently than the
    territories. I am not sure that makes a lot of sense.
        Chairman Lieberman. Forgive me, because I am going to miss
    the vote. It also gives me the chance to have the last word,
    and in this case to say that, on the other hand, Statehood is
    conferred by statute. Now, I understand it implicates different
    provisions of the Constitution, but the grant of Statehood,
    notwithstanding all the instances you have given of what had to
    occur through constitutional amendments----
        Mr. Kurland. That is correct. Statehood is granted by
    statute, but that would put the--there are a variety of other
    constitutional issues which Statehood raises that we have not
    discussed here, but Statehood is passed by a simple majority of
    both Houses, signed by the President, and that would make New
    Columbia or whatever the 51st State would be called on equal
    footing and would be a State, entitled to representation in the
    Federal legislature in both Houses of Congress.
        Chairman Lieberman. Thank you. This has been a very
    stimulating panel and maybe we will do it again sometime soon
    when we come back.
        I thank you all. It has been for me a very important day.
    All the documents that have been referred to will be entered
    into the formal record of the hearing. We will leave the record
    of the hearing open for 2 weeks, if others wish to submit
    testimony or additional submissions for the record.
        I would like to insert in the record a statement from Betty
    Ann Kane \1\ on behalf of the Board of Directors of the
    Committee for the Capital City and an article entitled
    ``Implicit Statehood'' by Timothy Cooper, Charles Wesley
    Harris, and Mark David Richards.\2\
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        \1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Kane with attachments appears in
    the Appendix on page 171.
        \2\ Article entitled ``Implicit Statehood'' by Timothy Cooper,
    Charles Wesley Harris, and Mark David Richards appears in the Appendix
    on page 174.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
        I just want to state again, and I hope this message is
    clear after the hearing, Congresswoman Norton and I and our
    cosponsors are quite serious about this and we are going to
    pursue it to the best of our ability in the months and years
    ahead. I thank all of you for contributing to a very important
    hearing.
        We are adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 4:30 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
                                A P P E N D I X

                                  ----------

                     PREPARED STATEMENT OF SENATOR BUNNING
        Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Today this Committee is discussing voting rights for the residents
    of the District of Columbia. I realize this is an important issue to
    many of the people who live in the city. Over the past several years,
    there have been several proposals to deal with this issue, including
    granting statehood to the District which would add two Senators and at
    least one Representative to Congress. Others have suggested giving the
    District's non-Federal area back to Maryland or allowing D.C. residents
    to vote in Maryland.
        One of the most important things we should remember is that the
    nation's capital was created on land originally part Virginia and
    Maryland. The founders didn't consider the city a state and didn't
    provide for representation in Congress.
        Even the city's name reflects the fact that it is not a State. It's
    a ``district.''
        As for allowing Maryland to take control of the District's non-
    Federal land, this at least makes sense. In fact, the areas of
    Arlington and Alexandria in Virginia which were originally part of the
    District were given back to Virginia in the 1840's, so there is at
    least some precedence for this.
        I have a feeling that this issue won't be resolved anytime soon.
    However, I appreciate the time our witnesses have taken to be here
    today, and I am looking forward to hearing from them.
        Thank you.
        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.001

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.002

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.003

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.004

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.005

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.006

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.007

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.008

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.009

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.010

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.011

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.012

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.013

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.014

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.015

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.016

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.017

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.018

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.019

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.020

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.021

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.022

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.023

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.024

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.025

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.026

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.027

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.028

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.029

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.030

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.031

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.032

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.033

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.034

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.035

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.036

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.037

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.038

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.039

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.040

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.041

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.042

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.043

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.044

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.045

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.046

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.047

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.048

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.049

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.050

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.051

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.052

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.053

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.054

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.055

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.056

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.057

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.058

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.059

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.060

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.061

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.062

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.063

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.064

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.065

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.066

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.067

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.068

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.069

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.070

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.071

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.072

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.073

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.074

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.075

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.076

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.077

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.078

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.079

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.080

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.081

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.082

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.083

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.084

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.085

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.086

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.087

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.088

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.089

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.090

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.091

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.092

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.093

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.094

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.095

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.096

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.097

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.098

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.099

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.100

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.101

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.102

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.103

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.104

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.105

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.106

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.107

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.108

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.109

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.110

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.111

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.112

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.113

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.114

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.115

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.116

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.117

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.118

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.119

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.120

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.121

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.122

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.123

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.124

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.125

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.126

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.127

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.128

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.129

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.130

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.131

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.132

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.133

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.134

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.135

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.136

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.137

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.138

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.139

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.140

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.141

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.142

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.143

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.144

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.145

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.146

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.147

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.148

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.149

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.150

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.151

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.152

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.153

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.154

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.155

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.156

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.157

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.158

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.159

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.160

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.161

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.162

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.163

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.164

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.165

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.166

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.167

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.168

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.169

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.170

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.171

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.172

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.173

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.174

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.175

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.176

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.177

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.178

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.179

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.180

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.181

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.182

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.183

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.184

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.185

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.186

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.187

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.188

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.189

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.190

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.191

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.192

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.193

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.194

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.195

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.196

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 80602.197

                                       -