[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 6 (Thursday, January 11, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H418-H425]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
VOTING RIGHTS FOR DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from the District of
Columbia (Ms. Norton) is recognized for 60 minutes.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I have initiated this Special Order on
behalf of the people of the District of Columbia who are second per
capita in the Federal taxes they pay to support our Federal Government;
yes, including this House and Senate and all the Armed Forces and our
exquisite government throughout the United States, and who have fought
and died in every war since the establishment of the Republic. In their
name, I come forward.
I came forward Tuesday in a 5-minute Special Order simply to inform
the House that I had just filed my vote, my bill, that is to say,
refiled the bill that Representative Tom Davis and I had filed and
hoped to pass in the 109th Congress, the Fair and Equal D.C. House
Voting Rights Act. I came in gratitude to my own party. I came also in
some frustration. It is impossible to hide that frustration.
I represent people who have been frustrated for 200 years and don't
want one single moment more of frustration by having a second-class
Member of the House of Representatives while paying first-class taxes
and dying and fighting in every war that our country has ever fought,
including this war where lives continue to be lost in such large
numbers and for what cause. They do not ask, they simply fight like
other Americans.
I had hoped to be able to vote on the very bills that have been in
discussion here this week, particularly the bills on which Democrats
ran and perhaps were responsible for our capture of the House. And my
deepest regret was that my Committee of the Whole vote that was taken
from me when the Democrats came to power was not automatically put back
into the rules.
To his great credit, the majority leader indicates that he intends to
introduce a provision to that effect. And I know I speak for myself and
all of the delegates when I thank him about thinking about us and about
how deeply we feel about that vote. For myself, I have come to the
floor to say that I have had to pass that vote. I won't get to vote on
the six items. I have been pleased to be able to speak on them as
usual.
I am at this point moving forward to where I have been instructed by
the people of the United States. They don't even want the Committee of
the Whole vote confused with what they are entitled to, and that is the
full House vote.
Mr. Speaker, before I go further, I have a number of people I must
thank. The bill I introduced today was not a bill that I authored. It
was originated by my good friend who also lives in the region,
Representative Tom Davis of Virginia, who has grown up in the region
and has seen the District of Columbia without a vote and believed that
at least a vote on the House floor was virtually mandated by any
Congress controlled by either party. He was in the majority and he
initiated this idea because it came to his attention that the most
Republican State in the Union had missed getting full voting rights,
were chafing at that because they believed they were entitled and they
had gone all the way to the Supreme Court to get them, and believed
that this provided out what turns out to be the case, probably the only
opportunity the District of Columbia will have to get its full voting
rights in a very long time.
I want to thank the majority leader who lives in the region who has
been one of the most steadfast proponents of D.C. voting rights and
never gives up and who always stands with us and to whom we will be
eternally grateful.
I have special thanks to Henry Waxman, the Chair of the Government
Reform Committee, who has been the Democratic leader of the bill that I
bring forward today for all 4 years which we have worked on it. He is
always a strong supporter of District home rule and for District of
Columbia voting rights. He was here years before I came to Congress,
and I am second only to him in supporting these issues. He is one of
the great problem-solvers of the Congress, and he has been instrumental
in bringing this bill forward. It is impossible to believe it could
have happened without Henry Waxman.
I want to thank the Democratic and Republican members of the
Government Reform Committee, who in the 109th Congress literally gave
us virtually a tie vote of Republicans and Democrats favoring this
bill: 15 Democrats, 14 Republicans.
I want to thank Representative John Conyers, a founder of the
Congressional Black Caucus, the dean of the caucus, who has carried
this idea again long before I ever thought of coming to Congress.
At the same time, I want to thank my colleagues in the Congressional
Black Caucus who since the founding days of the caucus have given D.C.
voting rights a priority, who believe with me that it is an issue of
discrimination based on race, and for that matter on location. I say
that and will explain it later because of the origins of our voteless
condition.
I want to thank Senator Joe Lieberman, who with many other Democratic
Senators in the Congress have carried my bill for full voting rights
for the residents of the District of Columbia, the No Taxation Without
Representation Act. We have reluctantly but with great realism embraced
the House-only act because we understand the spirit of the Congress,
that it has virtually never acted all at once to do what it is supposed
to do. So we know that we have to proceed in an incremental fashion.
I must thank my good colleagues from the State of Utah who have
[[Page H419]]
worked hand in glove with me every step of the way: Jim Matheson, the
only Democrat in that delegation; Rob Bishop and Chris Cannon who have
thrown aside party lines and thrust themselves into this bill from the
beginning.
I want to thank the two Senators from Utah, Orrin Hatch and Bob
Bennett, who sent word to their leadership that they were prepared to
have this bill come to the floor at the end of the 109th Congress for
unanimous passage.
That would have happened, in my view, because the traditions of the
Senate are that if a bill affects only one State, as a matter of
Senatorial courtesy, the Senate defers to those Senators. It is
heartbreaking that the 109th Congress punted the bill and robbed us of
the opportunity to have that Senate vote in December.
I have to thank the Governor of Utah, who came here to testify for
the bill and has worked valiantly with the Democratic minority in Utah
as well as with his own party.
I do want to read from the letter that the Senators sent asking for
the bill to be considered right away because, you see, the
bipartisanship we must preserve in this bill. They said in their letter
to their leaders, Leader Frist and Leader Reid, a letter signed by
Senator Bennett, Senator Hatch and Senator Lieberman: ``It is urgent
that Congress fulfill its obligation to provide the voting
representation that Utah is entitled to as a result of changes to its
population. Likewise, we recognize that the 600,000-plus Americans who
live in the District of Columbia are without a voting Member of
Congress. No doubt the citizens of Utah and the District face different
challenges in greatly differing parts of the country and with greatly
differing lifestyles, but they share a commonality: the right to be
represented in our country's legislature.''
If ever there was a win/win piece of legislation, I think most
Members would agree this is it. Certainly the American people agree: 82
percent of Americans support equal voting rights for the District of
Columbia in Congress. That is 82 percent, up 10 percentage points in
just 5 years.
This professional poll shows some astounding results because then you
want to look and see, is this piled up all on one side of the country
or one grouping or one race, and you see the same thing throughout.
Once people realize you pay Federal income taxes, and if you go to war
the way we do, if the blood of the United States runs in your veins,
you give up on the question of whether there should be voting
representation in the Congress of the United States.
All of the figures are in the high seventies or eighties. Northeast,
Midwest. The South is the highest, 84 percent. Or if you look, at have
a member of the military, they are 82 percent. These are people who
believe in voting rights for the District of Columbia. Regularly attend
religious services, 82 percent.
Ages 55-plus, 82 percent; 18 to 34, 87 percent ages. We can find no
variation in these figures, and I don't think you will find any
variation anywhere in the world.
This is the only country in the world where the residents of the
capital do not have the right to vote in their national legislature.
You can imagine why there is such great impatience in the District of
Columbia. Imagine not having voting rights. Putting aside the taxes for
a moment, when in the Vietnam War you had more casualties than 10
States, when in World War II you had more casualties than four States,
and in World War I you had more casualties than three States, and in
the Korean War you had more casualties than eight States.
Let me finally say a word about the bill, and I am so pleased to see
other Members of Congress come to join me in this Special Order.
My thanks again to the originator, the author of this bill. As it
turns out, he has given us the only chance we will ever have. The
Congress of the United States in House and Senate has never increased
its number except on a nonpartisan basis. Democrats have never got it
by themselves, Republicans have never gotten it by themselves.
Everybody remembers Alaska and Hawaii. You want to know how deep this
goes, slave States couldn't get in unless a free State could. That is
the history of our country. I regret that there has to be that kind of
equivalence, but I want everybody to know: Utah somehow disjoined from
this bill kills it. So I thank Utah for giving us the only chance we
will ever have, particularly since I am not sure that we will have
another State ever that missed it by the skin of their teeth and would
be willing to take this risk with us.
This bill was 4 years in the making after Mr. Davis introduced it. My
thanks to him will be eternal because he was gracious in working with
me when I wanted matters added to the bill. For example, I said to him,
I could not even sponsor the bill unless it also went to the Committee
on the Judiciary because that is the committee of jurisdiction. And it
was Mr. Davis who convinced Mr. Sensenbrenner to allow us a markup.
I said that there had to be an increase of two seats so no Member
would think that they would lose a seat because we were gaining a seat.
And I asked for something that was purely symbolic but important to the
residents of the District of Columbia: I asked Mr. Davis who was then
chairman of the committee if there could be a vote on my bill, the No
Taxation Without Representation Act, so my people will know that I will
never give up until they have full citizenship even if Congress
requires us to do it step by step.
But that is how we got home rule. Indeed, now we have the atrocious
situation where my budget and laws have to sit here before we can spend
our own money. So everything happens in this House incrementally.
Mr. Speaker, Members on the floor who have been particularly gracious
to me, always with me when I needed help, and I have needed help a lot
as a Member from the District of Columbia with no delegation and no
Senators, and some of them have come down in order to indicate their
concern about our denial of voting rights and to say their piece. I
could not be more grateful to them.
I am told that the first to arrive was the gentlelady from the Virgin
Islands, who is in perhaps not a comparable position because I am sure
that the people of the Virgin Islands are glad not to have to pay taxes
to the Government of the United States, but who indeed represents
American citizens as free and full as any others in the House; and I am
pleased she has come down this evening, Mrs. Christensen of the Virgin
Islands.
{time} 1915
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I rise to support my colleague and friend, Eleanor
Holmes Norton, in her hard and long-fought efforts to secure full
voting rights in this body for herself and her constituents, and I
applaud her strong and persistent advocacy and leadership on this issue
that is so important to the people of the District of Columbia.
Democrats have long been committed to providing full voting rights to
the residents of the District, and I am proud to stand here as a
Democrat speaking out for this right as well. But there has also been,
as you have heard, support across the aisle.
When he was the chairman of the Government Reform Committee,
Representative Tom Davis worked with Congresswoman Norton to get
bipartisan agreement on legislation to give one voting representative
to the mainly Democratic District of Columbia, and another to the
largely Republican State of Utah.
This effort led to the introduction of the District of Columbia Fair
and Equal House Voting Rights Act, 2006, last year, and this week,
ranking member Davis kept his promise and joined Congresswoman Norton
in reintroducing this bill into the 110th Congress.
Mr. Speaker, as a Delegate in the House also without a vote, I would
be remiss if I didn't acknowledge also the fact that my constituents,
and indeed the constituents of our colleagues from Guam, America Samoa
and Puerto Rico, also would want their representative to have a full
vote in the House as well. We recognize, however, that our time for
this has not yet come. But certainly the time of our brothers and
sisters in the District of Columbia has come and is very long overdue.
The residents of the District have been laboring under this
undemocratic status for more than 200 years. That is
[[Page H420]]
200 years of justice delayed and justice denied.
Presidents as far back as Andrew Jackson have advocated for full
representation in Congress for the District, and much later, President
Richard Nixon in a special message to the Congress on the District of
Columbia in 1969 said, ``It should offend the democratic sense of the
Nation that the 850,000 residents of its capital, comprising a
population larger than 11 of its States, have no voice in Congress.''
Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the day when all citizens under the
American flag will enjoy the democratic right of full representation in
their national assembly as well as vote for our President and
Commander-in-Chief. Until that day comes, I look forward to witnessing
soon the day when residents of the District of Columbia, residents of
the capital of our Nation, finally receive fair and equal voting rights
in the House, the day that they will finally have justice.
I urge my colleagues to support the District of Columbia Equal House
Voting Rights Act and end taxation without representation for our
fellow citizens in the District of Columbia.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for coming forward.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr.
Butterfield) who represents the district where my own mother was born
and raised.
Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Mr. Speaker, first let me thank the delegate from
the District of Columbia for giving me this time this evening to speak
on this most important subject. I have watched Eleanor Holmes Norton
since I have been in the Congress, and she has worked so tirelessly on
behalf of the people of the District of Columbia to get full voting
rights, and I want to thank her for her passion and thank her for her
work in this body.
Mr. Speaker, many people who now call the District of Columbia home
have established themselves here by way of my home State of North
Carolina and by way of our neighboring State of South Carolina. As the
delegate said a few minutes ago, even her family originated in Halifax
County, North Carolina, which is in my Congressional District.
Many DC residents are my schoolmates from eastern North Carolina. In
coming to Washington, DC, they left parents, and they left grandparents
behind who had endured blatant discrimination in public accommodations
and discrimination at the ballot box. Many of them could not vote
because of the literacy test, and others refused to register to vote
because of voter intimidation.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the descendants of these individuals living in
Washington, DC, are again denied the right to vote and the right to
have voting representation in Congress.
What a disgrace. Voting is one of our most fundamental rights, but it
is one that has been systematically denied for as long as it has been
assured. Until 1919, women did not have the right to vote. African
Americans gained the right to vote for the first time in 1868, and then
lost that right in 1900. It was the Voting Rights Act that restored the
effective right to vote in 1965.
Mr. Speaker, each time the right to vote has been oppressed, good
people, good people, have stood up and stood strong to ensure that
right, because it forms the foundation of our ideals of governance.
Today, we again have the opportunity to expand the right to vote and
to ensure that the people being governed in the District of Columbia,
who pay taxes and who fight in our wars, have a voice in their
government.
Rarely does an issue come before this body which goes right to the
heart of our values as Americans. The right to vote is a simple and
straightforward idea that embodies some of our most beloved founding
principles, the idea that all men, all people, are created equal, and
that we establish our government by the consent of the governed. When
we fail to address inequalities such as these, we fail ourselves as a
people and as a nation and we fail to honor the sacrifices of the many
people before us who wanted to ensure basic rights to all Americans.
As the Delegate so ably said a few moments ago, this is not a
Democratic issue nor a Republican issue. This is an American problem
that must be resolved and resolved in this session of the Congress.
The strength of our great Nation lies within its citizens, and the
power of its citizens relies upon the equal access to the franchise.
These opportunities include our many freedoms, especially the right to
have a strong and clear voice in choosing elected leaders. As the
Constitution commands, we must extend the rights of citizenship to
every, every, citizen of this land, including the citizens of
Washington, DC.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the legislation that has
been introduced by the Delegate, and I urge its passage.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Mr. Butterfield, the
gentleman from North Carolina, in memory of my mother, Vela Lynch
Holmes, who came to the District of Columbia and died at 90 here, while
her daughter was still trying, in the name of my father's side of the
family, the native Washingtonians, to make us all first class citizens,
the way finally you are in North Carolina. Thank you, sir.
I would like to yield now to my good friend who came in my class with
me, the gentlelady from California, who 16 years ago came. I think we
tripled or quadrupled the number of African American women in the
Congress then. I know that the gentlewoman from California won't let
this House have any peace until there is justice for the District of
Columbia.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker and Members, I wanted very much to be on this
floor this evening with Eleanor Holmes Norton first because I want to
show my strong support for her, her work, her love for the District of
Columbia and for the way she has used every bit of her time and efforts
to fight for voting rights for Washington, DC.
I admire her spirit, I admire her commitment and I admire the way she
has educated the entire Congress of the United States on this issue and
forged a relationship with people on the other side of the aisle to get
us to the point where we are.
I know that it is disappointing sometimes to feel you have come so
close, and it still hasn't happened, but I am convinced it will happen,
because of you, Eleanor Holmes Norton. It will happen because you will
not allow it not to happen.
So I wanted to be here this evening more than to simply talk about
the unfairness of not having voting rights. We all know that. I wanted
to be here tonight to say to you, sister, I am with you. I have
marched, and I will march again. I have sat in, and I will sit in
again.
I started on this issue when I was in the California State
legislature, and sometimes I feel a little guilty because I don't think
I demonstrated long enough and hard enough to show how much I care
about this.
I come from a time and place in St. Louis, MO, where I was educated
in an elementary school called the James Weldon Johnson elementary
school, with strong teachers who taught us the Constitution. We learned
the Declaration of Independence. We learned what happened with the
British and about the Boston Tea Party, and we learned about Patrick
Henry, who declared, ``Give me liberty or give me death.''
So, whether or not it was intended, it was instilled in us that in
this America, despite the fact that we had witnessed discrimination, we
had been marginalized, that we have a right in this democracy to
participate fully.
I really believed that, and if it was not intended, then they
shouldn't have taught it to us, because we didn't think they were
talking about somebody else. We truly believed they were talking about
all of us.
Mr. Speaker, there is not a day that passes as I look around this
Capitol that I am not reminded of the slaves that happened to build
these marvelous buildings. I am reminded on a daily basis of the people
who work right here in the Capitol, in these buildings, who live in the
District of Columbia, who hear us wax eloquently day in and day out
about democracy and participation and the Voting Rights Act.
These are the people who serve us day in and day out, and serve us
well. You come into this Capitol late in the evening and you see who is
working and how hard they work and what they do for all of us. And yet
we walk past
[[Page H421]]
them every day, and we don't stop to say, ``I'm so sorry. You should
have the right to have the representation in the Congress of the United
States that you deserve and we thought would have been guaranteed by
the Constitution of the United States.''
So, Eleanor Holmes Norton, thank you. Thank you for the love that you
have for the District. I know that your constituents know this. You
don't have to prove anything to anybody, because your daily work proves
who you are and what your values are and what you care about.
I want you to know, November 7th gave us a new opportunity here. The
people have voted, and the people have said to us they want to see
change. The people are angry about what happened with Katrina. They are
angry about Iraq. They are angry basically about injustice. And even
those folks who oftentimes have been silent on the issue, they know
injustice when they see it and feel it very deeply.
So I am hopeful that we will be able to use this time that we have to
provide the leadership, to give you the support, to make sure we do
justice by the District of Columbia and ensure that you get your voting
rights.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, this was classic Maxine Waters. The
gentlelady is as gracious as she has always been militant in the
pursuit of justice. Ms. Waters one session was on the floor with me for
10 hours on the DC Appropriations as people came forward to try to
attach things to our appropriation. So she has been a stalwart friend
that has been by my side when I most needed her. I particularly
appreciate those remarks from a classmate who came with me to the
Congress.
The next to arrive was my good friend from Illinois, Mr. Davis, a
very good friend who serves with me on the Government Reform Committee,
who I believe is going to chair the subcommittee on which I serve. He
certainly has been a leader on issues on that committee and one of the
greatly admired Members of the House, the gentleman from Illinois, Mr.
Davis.
(Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I first of all want to thank the
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia for not only organizing this
special order, but for her tremendous devotion over the years.
Many of us, long before we came to Washington, DC, long before we
became Members of the House of Representatives, knew of the work of
Eleanor Holmes Norton. As a matter of fact, I was talking to a
gentleman the other day, Eleanor, who suggested that he went to
elementary school with you, and that you were the smartest person in
the class, and that he was always intimidated when he came to class
because he knew that you were there.
{time} 1930
And I don't know whether you intended to intimidate him or not, but I
do know that the passion, the intellect, the energy that you display is
something for all of America to be proud of; and I know that the people
in the District of Columbia are indeed proud of the representation that
you have given them.
The issue that we deal with, I take the position, is one of the most
fundamental of all rights, one of the most fundamental of all desires,
and that is the desire that people have to be represented; the notion
that their thoughts, ideas, hopes, and aspirations will get the same
consideration as those of anybody else. So when we look at voting
rights in this country historically, it has been a privilege that
people have had to fight and struggle to get.
Initially, of course, the only people who could vote were landowners,
who were white in America. Those were the only individuals who had the
right to vote. Then we went through this long period of time, and
ultimately a Civil War, where thousands of people actually lost their
lives, and finally African Americans, who had been slaves, were granted
at least the right, although in many instances denied the opportunity,
to vote. Women, who had to wage their own war, their own struggles,
ultimately won their right to vote.
Only after the Voting Rights Act of 1965 did hundreds of thousands of
citizens all over the country, especially African Americans and
Latinos, actually have the right to vote. Yet now we still have
thousands of people who are denied the right to vote because they live
in States where if you have a felony conviction you can never, ever
vote, unless you can obtain a waiver. So, yes, one can imagine how
people in the District of Columbia have felt as we talk about expanding
democracy, as we talk about guaranteeing democracy for people in Iraq,
guaranteeing democracy there; and yet the people who live in our own
District of Columbia have not been able to have that experience.
So, Eleanor, I know that we are going to make sure this happens
before this session of Congress ends as a tribute to you and a tribute
to the long-standing work that you have done. One of my pleasures is to
serve with you on the Committee on Government Reform and to listen and
to learn and to be motivated, to be inspired, and to see the kind of
wisdom that you express on a regular and ongoing basis.
So I thank you for the opportunity to join you, I thank you for
organizing this Special Order, and we will be standing right here with
you when enough ``yeas'' are said that the people in the District of
Columbia will have their right to vote.
Mr. Speaker, I want to extend a thank you to Congresswoman Eleanor
Holmes Norton for this special order and her hard work and dedication
to get the District of Columbia the right to vote with full
representation. It is strange to me where our government by money and
blood sought to assist Iraq to become a democratic state where each
person will have one vote under their newly formed constitution to
determine their nation's destiny. However, the residents in the
District of Columbia for over 200 years have been denied by the United
States government the right to vote with full representation. Moreover,
DC presidents also are denied the right to full self-government--a
fundamental right that should be possessed by all Americans.
In 1950 with just under a million, the District of Columbia had more
residents than New Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island, North Dakota,
South Dakota, Delaware, Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, New Mexico, Arizona,
Utah, Nevada, Alaska and Hawaii, respectively. All of these states from
the beginning had U.S. Senators and U.S. Representatives representing
their interests in Congress. Today, the District of Columbia has a duly
elected Delegate that is not allowed to vote for legislative measures
on the house floor. This is ``taxation without representation.''
The government has a history of denying its citizens the right to
vote. We have seen it before the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Since its
passage and signing into law by President Johnson it gave way to an
enormous and positive impact to our Nation. The importance and
necessity of the Voting Rights Act cannot be overemphasized. We have
learned through experience what a difference the vote makes to us.
The right to vote is the most basic constitutive act of citizenship.
The right to vote should not be abridged by the United States or any
State on account of race, color, gender, or previous condition of
servitude. Fundamental fairness requires that all members of society
who have reached voting age, including rehabilitated ex-felons, be
given a right to the ballot in State and Federal elections.
The lack of a nationwide uniform standard regarding ex-felons and
eligibility to vote has led to a crazy quilt of laws, where in some
States ex-felons are barred from voting for life. Currently, it is
estimated that 3.9 million United States citizens are disenfranchised,
including over one million who have completed their sentences. State
disenfranchisement laws have had an adverse affect on African
Americans. Thirteen percent of African American men, or 1.4 million,
are currently disenfranchised because of such laws. We need to expand
the right to vote to all citizens.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to support the District of
Columbia Fair and Equal Housing Voting Rights Act of 2007.
Ms. NORTON. I just want to thank the gentleman for the kindness and
graciousness of his remarks. This is his signature in this House. Every
time he opens his mouth, he takes command of an issue and captures our
attention. That he has given his attention to us in the District of
Columbia is a matter for which we are deeply grateful.
I would like to yield now to the gentlewoman from Houston, Texas,
whose energy and intelligence and zeal for justice is known by every
Member of this House. I am pleased now to yield to the gentlewoman from
Texas, Representative Sheila Jackson-Lee.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, many might wonder why we
[[Page H422]]
come to the floor of the House and begin to either cite the Bible or
begin to associate Congresswoman Norton with the angels flying above,
but I love the statistics that she cited, because she mentioned the
statistics of churchgoing people in Washington, D.C. So I begin by
saying the prayers of the righteous avail us much. Not only has she
been praying but she has been working.
I would cast the reintroduction of H.R. 328 as the morality of
Sojourner Truth that Eleanor Holmes Norton exhibits, and the integrity
of Harriet Tubman, for this has been a long journey. But I believe in
this new Congress, with this new direction, this simple bill, this
premise of equality and justice can finally say our time has come.
And if you don't mind, allow me to emulate your eloquence in the
simplicity of this bill. H.R. 328 couldn't be more fair. You made it
very clear that this is a bill that could not move without bipartisan
support. You made the historical pronouncement that when we began to
admit States during the era of slavery we admitted a free State and a
slave State.
Now, we know that there are Democrats and Republicans all across
America, but we might imagine that under this bill, H.R. 328, that the
State of Utah might elect someone from a different party than myself.
Then we might just envision that Washington, D.C. would select and
elect someone of my party. How fair could you be?
We know that the delegate, who I call Congresswoman, appropriately
titled, certainly is valued in the Democratic Party, but this
legislation will be fair and balanced because it draws disparate
populations that have been denied their birthright from the far ranges
of the east coast of America to the far ranges of the western United
States.
Let me just briefly speak to the issue of birthright. We have spoken
so much about citizenship. We have had such outrageous debates on the
question of immigration; yet we have left out, for more than 200 years
or more, citizens who have shed their blood through the Civil War, the
Spanish-American War, World War I, World War II, the Korean War, and
conflicts in between, the Vietnam War, and the present conflict that we
now have. What do you say to parents and relatives, husbands and wives,
sisters and brothers of a fallen soldier who happen to have an address
in the District of Columbia, someone who offered themselves to stand up
for this Nation's flag? I pledge allegiance to the concept of freedom
and justice for all.
So as we prepare to leave this weekend, Congresswoman, let me thank
you for allowing us just a moment to come to the floor as we go into
the weekend commemorating the birthday of Dr. Martin Luther King, who
had the opportunity to be called by President Lyndon Baines Johnson to
come to the Oval Office to witness the signing of the 1965 Voting
Rights Act. I know full well that Dr. King would have wanted to have an
amended initiative. I know Dr. King, if living, would be standing by
your side and applauding you.
Lastly, let me tell you an anecdotal story that I was going to try to
ask you to remember, because I could not, but I really thought I was a
champion of civil rights when your predecessor, Walter Fauntroy, who as
you know would sing us all into marching wherever he wanted us to go,
but he told us there was a man called McFarland that was chairman of
the District of Columbia, wasn't it?
Ms. NORTON. McMillan.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. McMillan, thank you. That's why I should
have whispered to you before I came down.
He would tell us that we needed to get on a bus and go to South
Carolina to defeat, and I can say this on the floor, I know Mr.
McMillan has gone on and is resting in peace, because this gentleman
was an obstacle to the freedom, the dignity, and respect. All I knew
was to get on this bus and go down to, I would like to say Florence,
South Carolina, and go to a place where I was truly unwanted. We all
were. In fact, the campaign office, they drove by in a pickup truck and
shot at. But I had a sense of purpose and joy for the people of this
great District, these patriots. These Americans deserved the equality
of a vote.
I will go to my seat by simply saying, out of their commitment comes
Ms. Eleanor Holmes Norton, who I hope will claim the victory of the
passage of H.R. 328, and that we will together, with you and your
leadership, do the right thing for the patriots of this District.
I thank Delegate Norton for organizing this special order on the
``District of Columbia Fair and Equal House Voting Rights Act,''
bipartisan legislation that she and Congressman Tom Davis of Virginia
have reintroduced as H.R. 328 in the ll0th Congress. The reintroduction
of this legislation provides a second chance for Congress to complete
one of the great unfinished tasks of the Civil Rights Movement. This is
an opportunity that we should not squander.
As Section 2 of H.R. 328 finds, over half a million people living in
the District of Columbia lack direct voting representation in the House
of Representatives and Senate. Residents of the District of Columbia
serve in the military, pay billions of dollars in federal taxes each
year, and assume other responsibilities of U.S. citizenship. For over
200 years, the District has been denied voting representation in
Congress--the entity that has ultimate authority over all aspects of
the city's legislative, executive, and judicial functions.
H.R. 328 would permanently expand the U.S. House of Representatives
from 435 to 437 seats, providing a vote to the District of Columbia and
a new, at-large seat to Utah. Based on the 2000 Census, Utah is the
state next in line to enlarge its Congressional delegation. This bill
does not give the District statehood, nor does it give the District
representation in the Senate. Rather, H.R. 328 treats the District as a
Congressional district for the purposes of granting full House
representation.
Previous Congressional efforts to secure voting representation for
the District of Columbia include a proposed 1978 Constitutional
amendment, a 1993 statehood bill, and a 2002 voting representation
bill. On August 22, 1978, a two-thirds majority in each Chamber of
Congress passed the DC Voting Rights Constitutional Amendment, which
would have provided District residents voting representation in the
House and Senate. The required 38 states did not ratify the amendment
within the seven-year time limit. On November 21, 1993, the New
Columbia Admission Act, H.R. 51, a statehood bill for the District of
Columbia, was defeated in the House by a vote of 277-153.
Most recently, on October 9, 2002, then Senate Governmental Affairs
Committee Chairman, Joseph Lieberman, marked-up his legislation
providing Senate and House representation for the District. The
Committee reported the bill favorably with a vote of 9-0. However, the
Senate did not take up this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, the key provision of H.R. 328 is section 4, which
permanently increases the Membership of the House of Representatives
from 435 to 437. One seat would be designated for the District of
Columbia and the other seat would go to Utah, the state next in line
under the 2000 Census apportionment formula. Section 4 also provides
that the new seat established in Utah shall be an at-large seat. This
at-large seat shall exist until all congressional seats are
reapportioned for the 2012 election.
Mr. Speaker, passage of the DC Fair and Equal House Voting Rights Act
and would be a simple act of justice. After all, the legislation is
vote-neutral in that it does not advantage any political party over
another; the bill commands wide bipartisan support; and most important,
the bill is constitutional.
The Bill Is Vote-Neutral
The DC Voting Rights Act provides Americans living in our nation's
capital with voting representation in the House of Representatives for
the first time ever. The DC VRA balances a seat for DC with an
additional seat for Utah. Utah missed getting a fourth vote in the
House by less than 1,000 people following the 2000 U.S. Census.
Utah is a historically Republican state. The District of Columbia has
traditionally voted Democratic. Thus, the bill is viewed as vote-
neutral, not favoring one political party over another. This balance
has led to a nonpartisan consensus, which is critical to enacting this
bill.
The Bill Is Bipartisan
Throughout history, Democrats and Republicans have gone on record in
strong support of DC voting rights. Presidents, presidential
candidates, senators, members of Congress and prominent legal experts
from both sides of the aisle have declared support for granting the
residents of Washington, DC, a vote in Congress. From Supreme Court
Justice William Rehnquist and Senator Bob Dole to President Jimmy
Carter and Senator Edward Kennedy, political leaders are on record for
democracy in DC.
In 2006, Representative Tom Davis and Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton
were joined by now House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Representatives Chris
Cannon, John Conyers, Henry Waxman, Dan Burton, Rob
[[Page H423]]
Bishop and others in support of the DC Voting Rights Act. Off the Hill,
former elected officials Jack Kemp, John Breaux, J.C. Watts and others
support the bill.
Secretary Kemp put it well at the Martin Luther King Memorial
groundbreaking when he said: ``Dr. King like Mr. Lincoln believed that
`democracy is the ultimate destiny of all mankind'. Thus it becomes
strikingly ironic and indeed actually hypocritical for our nation to
send young men and women to fight in foreign wars in the cause of
freedom and democracy but continue to deny the people of this great
city the opportunity to vote for their representative in the U.S.
Congress.''
The Bill Is Constitutional
In a letter to the House Judiciary Committee this summer, the
American Bar Association stated: ``Enactment of the proposed [bill)
would be an exercise of this constitutional authority conferred by the
`District Clause.'''
Former federal appeals court judge and Solicitor General, Judge
Kenneth Starr, during congressional testimony in 2004, stated that
Congress clearly has the constitutional power under the Constitution's
District Clause (Art. I, Sec. 8, Clause 17) to confer voting
representation: ``The use of the word `state' [in the Constitution)
cannot bar Congress from exercising its plenary authority [under the
District Clause) to extend the franchise to District residents.''
Other constitutional law experts, including Professor Viet Dinh and
Judge Patricia M. Wald, formerly of the D.C. Circuit, agree that
Congress has the constitutional authority to grant congressional voting
representation to the residents of the District of Columbia.
Mr. Speaker, Americans living in our nation's capital pay taxes,
serve on juries, and defend our nation during times of war, but do not
have voting representation in either chamber of Congress. The United
States is the only democratic country in the world that denies voting
representation to citizen of the nation's capital. A national poll
conducted in January 2005 showed that 82 percent of Americans believe
that Washingtonians deserve voting representation in the House and
Senate. While we are attempting to export democracy abroad, it is time
we provide American rights for people living in America's capital.
In conclusion, let me express my thanks again to the Delegate from
the District of Columbia for organizing this special order. I look
forward to working with her and my colleagues on the Judiciary
Committee and in the House to win passage of this important
legislation, which will treat the hundreds of thousands of citizens in
the District of Columbia fairly and equally when it comes to voting
representation in the House of Representatives.
Ms. NORTON. I want to thank the gentlewoman. The selfless spirit of
her remarks, the intelligence of her remarks is nothing new in this
body. Indeed, it reminds me of the same spirit she has shown when our
own citizens from New Orleans came in huge numbers to her great city
and they took them in, because they were Americans.
I also want to thank her for citing and reminding us that Martin
Luther King's birthday is coming up and we are all going to be
somewhere celebrating. Well, Martin Luther King would be here saying to
this House, particularly to the Democratic majority who has spearheaded
this issue for decades now, that now is the moment. Do it now. That is
what he said when he was on the Mall. Do it now. Freedom now.
Indeed, the new Mayor of the District of Columbia, Adrian Fenty, who
has been particularly active on voting rights, has indicated to me that
he will be dedicating January 15 here in the District to DC voting
rights and kicking off a campaign on January 15 that he calls Give DC
The Vote Now Day in memory of Martin Luther King, who would not want
his day used in such trivialities as simple ceremonies.
I also want to thank the gentlewoman for her reference to Mr.
McMillan. Because the fact is the reason the District hadn't gotten
home rule had to do with race and only with race. Mr. McMillan was a
Southern Democrat who stood in the way, because beginning in the late
1950s the majority population of the District of Columbia was African
Americans. So race has always stood in the way of our full empowerment.
Today, it is as likely to be party. That is why we are grateful to the
State of Utah for stepping forward.
I don't mean to say that race is gone from this issue. Residents of
the District of Columbia, two-thirds of them African American, see this
issue as an up-and-down civil rights issue. They are the only African
Americans in the United States that don't have their full civic rights,
and they know it, and they treat this issue this way.
I treat race as a simple proxy for party, because we are a big city,
recognizing as I do that I know full well what second-class citizenship
means. And you have to understand that the reason this is important for
the District is not only was it a majority black city beginning in the
late 1950s, but it was a segregated city for most of its existence. The
schools were segregated. Even when I went to the schools in the
District of Columbia. Downtown was segregated. And that was all at a
time when Democrats in particular ran this House.
That is why this issue knows no party and why it has huge racial
connotations in our country and in the District, and that is why this
is a major issue and has been for decades for the NAACP, the Leadership
Conference on Civil Rights, and civil rights organizations across the
United States.
{time} 1945
They indicate that voting rights for the District of Columbia is
second only on their agenda to what this House and Senate achieved on a
bipartisan basis last year, and that is the reauthorization of the 1965
Voting Rights Act.
I want to say that, just by point of clarity, I introduced the same
bill, essentially, that I had introduced before. That bill had a map in
it that had been approved by Democrats and Republicans because Mr.
Sensenbrenner, then the Chair of the Judiciary Committee, at the last
minute said that he would not accept a compromise that we had all
fashioned, that Utah, that our leadership, on both sides agreed to, and
that was that there be an at-large seat so there would be no
redistricting. The redistricting issue had been a very thorny issue
because there is only one Democrat in Utah. He has been the target of
gerrymandering. Nobody wanted that on the table any longer. And
therefore, we came forward with a compromise of an at-large seat. Mr.
Sensenbrenner insisted upon redistricting.
Let me say, the people of the District of Columbia don't care one way
or the other, whether it is at-large or redistricting the at-large. The
redistricted seat there apparently is perfectly satisfactory to both
sides. Whatever is easy, whatever gets me to sit in this seat as
something other than the way I sit today, as a second class citizen, is
acceptable to us. What we want is the vote, and we want our voting
rights in the 110th Congress.
I do want to say that we haven't given up on full citizenship, and we
never intend to. But we recognize the way in which the House has always
operated, and that is incrementally.
It was not until 1967 that we incrementally began to give this, move
this District toward having self government, would you believe. It had
no mayor. It had no city council because it had been governed since the
19th century by three commissioners appointed by the President of the
United States; 800,000 people then living as a straight out colony in
their own Nation's Capital.
Lyndon Johnson abolished the commission and appointed a council.
Then, in 1968, they gave the District the right to vote for their own
board of education. Then, in 1970, the District got the right to vote
for a delegate. And my good predecessor, a man who fought valiantly for
our full rights, Walter Fauntroy, became the first Delegate. And then,
finally, in 1973, the Home Rule Act itself was enacted, and the
District got the right to elect its own city council and its own mayor.
And notice, that is 32 years ago only that your Capital has even had
the right to self government.
All of this is a real scar on our democracy. The scar has to be taken
off of this House and can be this year; and we ask that that be exactly
what the House does.
We remind the House that change for the District of Columbia only
came at the Civil War, a true indication of the way race has decided
matters in the District of Columbia.
My own people came to this city through my great grandfather, a
runaway slave. He was in Washington in 1862 when Congress abolished
slavery here.
But it is very interesting to note, when you see where the parties
stand, that in 1848, when this House was controlled by the Democrats,
the Democrats did give the District some home
[[Page H424]]
rule. But it gave it the right to have its own Board of Assessors, this
is like a council, and voting rights to all white male voters.
It took the radical Republicans, the abolitionist Republicans, to
grant black males the right to vote, and that was in 1867. That was the
proud history of the Republican Party. And we will never forget the
roots of that party, Abraham Lincoln, the first Republican President,
the President that abolished slavery, first in the District of
Columbia, then of course, led our country to the abolition of slavery
nationwide.
It was in 1878 that this notion of government, not by this self
government that had been set up for white males by the Democrats, that
the Republicans had converted so that everybody who could vote in the
United States could then vote.
By the way, you notice women were not given the right to vote then,
but they didn't have the right to vote anywhere.
But what happened in 1878, when Reconstruction came forward, when the
reaction to the Civil War came forward, then we had the Congress,
obviously, in the hands of Democrats again, providing that the District
of Columbia be governed, not by a self government, as had been allowed,
but by these Presidentially appointed commissioners who were, in fact,
the government of the District of Columbia until 1974.
Mr. Speaker, occasionally you will hear some opposition to our bill
based on the Constitution. Every other day somebody raises a
constitutional issue about some bill that comes to the floor. And we
concede that there is some division of opinion on whether or not
Congress can give the District the right to vote through the
Constitution, or whether it would take a constitutional amendment, as
has been tried in the past, but the requisite number of States did not
also ratify.
On the basis of very respectable constitutional opinion, and we are
certain that the bill is constitutional under Article I, Section 8 of
the Constitution, Congress has full plenary power over all matters
relating to the District of Columbia. We are certain that Congress can
have the right because we are certain that that is what the framers
intended.
When the Constitution was ratified in 1789, it clearly contemplated
that the vote would, in fact, be enjoyed by the people of the District
of Columbia. Everybody lived in a state then, including the people of
the District of Columbia. But notably, the citizens living on the land
designated by the Constitution, in the Constitution itself, as the
District, continued to have voting rights until 1801, because that land
had been given to the Federal Government by Maryland and Virginia.
When 1801 occurred, and the land came under the total control of the
Congress, only Congress could step forward and say, now that you are
under our jurisdiction, we just want to assure that you still, you have
not lost your voting rights by becoming the Nation's Capital. And the
people of the District of Columbia so petitioned, and Congress failed
to act. Therein lies the fatal flaw. Congress did not act. But you
certainly can't blame that on the Framers.
Imagine, would Maryland and Virginia have conceded the land to create
the District of Columbia if they thought they were disenfranchising
their own citizens? Impossible. And the Framers themselves indicated
that everybody in the United States would have their rights. So we are
quite confident that the bill is constitutional, although you will hear
words to the contrary from time to time.
We are also confident that if we were to decide to use the at-large
seat, as opposed to the map that is agreeable now, that that would be
constitutional because every voter in the State of Utah, only for a
very short time, because it then could revert, as the State desires, to
the present system from an at-large system; but every voter in Utah
would have the same equal right with no dilution of that right to elect
this at-large member for such period as the State chose to have it.
These issues have been thoroughly vetted, and we have constitutional
authority that I think the House would find persuasive. And I ask to be
able to enter into the Record the testimony of Kenneth Starr, who
testified to the constitutionality of the bill. This constitutional
lawyer, respected by all for his constitutional background, even as he
is regarded as controversial, perhaps that controversial side of his
career helps to explain that this bill must be constitutional. And I
thank Mr. Starr, and will submit that for the Record.
[From the Washington Post, Sept. 17, 2006]
Congress Has the Authority to Do Right by D.C.
(By Kenneth Starr and Patricia M. Wald)
More than 40 years ago, the Supreme Court declared that
``no right is more precious in a free country than that of
having a voice in the election of those who make the laws
under which, as good citizens, we must live.'' And yet, for
more than 200 years the citizens of the District have been
denied this right because they have no voting representation
in Congress. To its credit, Congress is taking steps to begin
correcting this longstanding injustice.
Specifically, the House Government Reform Committee has
approved, and the House Judiciary Committee is considering, a
bill that would give D.C. residents the right to full voting
representation in the House. While conferring this right is
surely the right thing to do, a legitimate question has been
raised concerning Congress's authority to confer the right by
simple legislation, rather than through constitutional
amendment. We have carefully considered this question and
believe for three reasons the bill is within Congress's
authority: It is consistent with fundamental constitutional
principles; it is consistent with the language of Congress's
constitutional power; and it is consistent with the governing
legal precedents.
First, interpretation of Congress's Article I legislative
authority should always be guided by the fundamental
principles upon which the nation and the Constitution were
founded. Those principles include a commitment to a
republican form of government and to the proposition that the
laws enacted by the legislature should be based on the
consent of the governed. There is nothing in our
Constitution's history or its fundamental principles
suggesting that the Framers intended to deny the precious
right to vote to those who live in the capital of the great
democracy they founded.
Second, Congress's specific power over the District of
Columbia is one of the broadest of all its powers. In the
words of the Constitution, ``Congress shall have power . . .
to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever''
over the District. In a 1984 case decided by the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, on which we both sat, Judge
Abner Mikva noted that through this constitutional provision,
the Framers gave Congress ``a unique and sovereign power''
over the District. In that same case, Judge (now Justice)
Antonin Scalia wrote that the broad language of the power
gave Congress ``extraordinary and plenary'' power over our
nation's capital. And in another case, that same court held
that this broad power gave Congress authority to ``provide
for the general welfare of citizens within the District of
Columbia by any and every act of legislation which it may
deem conducive to that end.'' It is hard to imagine a
broader, more comprehensive congressional power than this;
and it is also hard to imagine that the power could not be
used to advance a fundamental principle of our Constitution--
that the right to vote should be extended to all citizens.
Finally, and equally important, the most analogous legal
precedent addressing Congress's authority over the District
confirms that Congress can act now to give the vote to D.C.
residents. That precedent concerned the fact that Article III
of the Constitution confers on federal courts jurisdiction to
hear suits brought by citizens of different states against
each other. But the Constitution did not give any such
express jurisdiction over suits brought by or against
citizens of the District of Columbia. As a result, Congress,
relying on its broad Article I power over the District of
Columbia, remedied that unfairness through legislation that
extended the right to District residents. In a 1949 case
called National Mutual Insurance Co. v. Tidewater, the
Supreme Court upheld that extension and also said that
Congress was entitled to great deference in its determination
that it had power to address this inequity. The logic of this
case applies here, and supports Congress's determination to
give the right to vote for a representative to citizens of
the District of Columbia, even though the Constitution itself
gives that right only to citizens of states.
It is not a surprise that our Constitution, ratified in
1789, contemplated that the right to vote would be enjoyed
only by ``the people of the several states.'' After all, in
1789, all U.S. citizens lived in a state. It was not until
1801, when the process Congress authorized by statute in 1791
to create the District out of lands ceded by Virginia and
Maryland was completed, that District residents lost their
federal voting rights. There is no reason to believe the
Framers intended for this to happen. And in any case they
gave Congress power to address the problem. Congress has
initiated a process to do so, and we urge it to quickly
complete the task. As George Washington said in his first
inaugural address, the American people are entrusted with
``the preservation of the sacred fire of liberty and the
destiny of the republican model of government.'' It is time
to extend that model to the citizens of the nation's capital.
Ms. NORTON. There might be some opposition based on the notion that
[[Page H425]]
Utah gets one more electoral vote if they get a vote. Now, mind you,
Utah is going to get that at some point anyway, probably in the near
future. But there is some concern that Utah might get that vote now.
And we have the kind of situation that people most fear ever since the
2000 election, that there would be some kind of tie or some kind of
dispute; we would have no longer a tied number of electors from
Democratic and Republican States; and then you would have Utah with one
more vote.
Well, this is an issue that we asked a nonpartisan group about that
doesn't think, that has a different view of how the present system
operates in any case. The nonpartisan group is called Fair Vote, the
Center For Voting and Democracy. It is not affiliated with the District
of Columbia or with any party.
Apparently, it believes that the national popular vote plan for
President is how we should proceed. So they certainly are not making a
case for us in any particular way.
But it is important to note what they say about our bill and whether
our bill could, in fact, result in a crisis based on the fact that Utah
got one new electoral vote. And I am quoting: ``Our estimation of the
odds of the District of Columbia Fair and Equal Voting Rights Act
directly contributing to a Republican victory in the 2008 Presidential
race is,'' they say the odds are, ``approximately 400-1,'' or, in other
words, one chance in 1,600 presidential elections.
I want the Member to stand up who would, on this scintilla of a
chance, prefer to see us go without the only chance we have to get a
vote now or in the foreseeable future.
I want to thank the House for affording me this time, and the time of
the Members who have been gracious enough to come and speak on this
issue this evening. It is time that, for us, has been invaluable,
simply to let the Members of the House know how deeply we feel that the
time is on overtime to grant the people of the District of Columbia
their House vote now, in this Congress, the 110th Congress.
Mr. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Fair
and Equal House Voting Rights Act of 2007, bipartisan compromise
legislation to finally allow the District of Columbia voting
representation in the U.S. House of Representatives. This balanced
legislation, introduced by my honorable colleague from the District of
Columbia, would give her constituents a vote in this chamber while
adding a House seat for the state of Utah.
Among the capitals of democratic nations around the world, the U.S.
is the only country where its capital district citizens cannot vote in
the national legislature. Washington, DC, while serving as the Nation's
capital, also has many of the functions of a county or state. DC
operates its own police force, school system, legal code, occupational
licensure and vehicle inspections.
Today, the District of Columbia is home to 120 neighborhoods and a
population of 572,000. According to the 2000 U.S. Census, the
population of Washington, DC is greater than that of the state of
Wyoming (494,000) and is comparable to the states of Vermont (609,000),
Alaska (627,000), and North Dakota (642,000).
Proximity no longer means influence in the District of Columbia. The
Bureau of Labor Statistics reports its unemployment rate is 6 percent,
above the national average of 4.5 percent. DC's poverty rate is 17.5
percent, five points above the national average.
According to DC Vote, DC citizens pay higher per capita federal
income taxes than any other state. DC citizens are subject to all our
laws, serve on juries, fight our wars and pay taxes, yet have no voting
representation in the U.S. Congress.
Not only does DC have no say in the governance of our Nation, they
have diminished voices in the governance of their own city. The very
Congress which holds the power of the purse regarding DC's budget, also
has the power to repeal any DC law enacted by its city council.
It's time for fairness for the citizens of Washington, DC. As the
representative of another great city, I am proud to support voting
rights for the great city of Washington, DC, am proud to support the
Fair and Equal House Voting Rights Act of 2007 and call for its swift
passage.
____________________