[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 50 (Thursday, March 22, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H2838-H2863]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HOUSE VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 2007
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 260, I call
up the bill (H.R. 1433) to provide for the treatment of the District of
Columbia as a Congressional district for purposes of representation in
the House of Representatives, and for other purposes, and ask for its
immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 260, the
amendment printed in House Report 110-63 is adopted and the bill, as
amended, is considered read.
The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:
H.R. 1433
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``District of Columbia House
Voting Rights Act of 2007''.
SEC. 3. TREATMENT OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AS CONGRESSIONAL
DISTRICT.
(a) Representation in House of Representatives.--
(1) In general.--Whereas the District of Columbia is drawn
from the State of Maryland, notwithstanding any other
provision of law, the District of Columbia shall be
considered a Congressional district for purposes of
representation in the House of Representatives.
(2) No representation provided in senate.--The District of
Columbia shall not be considered a State for purposes of
representation in the Senate.
(b) Conforming Amendments Relating to Apportionment of
Members of House of Representatives.--
(1) Inclusion of single district of columbia member in
reapportionment of members among states.--Section 22 of the
Act entitled ``An Act to provide for the fifteenth and
subsequent decennial censuses and to provide for
apportionment of Representatives in Congress'', approved June
28, 1929 (2 U.S.C. 2a), is amended by adding at the end the
following new subsection:
``(d) This section shall apply with respect to the District
of Columbia in the same manner as this section applies to a
State, except that the District of Columbia may not receive
more than one Member under any reapportionment of Members.''.
(2) Clarification of determination of number of
presidential electors on basis of 23rd amendment.--Section 3
of title 3, United States Code, is amended by striking ``come
into office;'' and inserting the following: ``come into
office (subject to the twenty-third article of amendment to
the Constitution of the United States in the case of the
District of Columbia);''.
(c) Conforming Amendments Regarding Appointments to Service
Academies.--
(1) United states military academy.--Section 4342 of title
10, United States Code, is amended--
(A) in subsection (a), by striking paragraph (5); and
(B) in subsection (f), by striking ``the District of
Columbia,''.
(2) United states naval academy.--Such title is amended--
(A) in section 6954(a), by striking paragraph (5); and
(B) in section 6958(b), by striking ``the District of
Columbia,''.
(3) United states air force academy.--Section 9342 of title
10, United States Code, is amended--
(A) in subsection (a), by striking paragraph (5); and
(B) in subsection (f), by striking ``the District of
Columbia,''.
(4) Effective date.--This subsection and the amendments
made by this subsection shall take effect on the date on
which a Representative from the District of Columbia takes
office for the One Hundred Tenth Congress.
SEC. 4. INCREASE IN MEMBERSHIP OF HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
(a) Permanent Increase in Number of Members.--Effective
with respect to the One Hundred Tenth Congress and each
succeeding Congress, the House of Representatives shall be
composed of 437 Members, including any Members representing
the District of Columbia pursuant to section 3(a).
(b) Reapportionment of Members Resulting From Increase.--
(1) In general.--Section 22(a) of the Act entitled ``An Act
to provide for the fifteenth and subsequent decennial
censuses and to provide for apportionment of Representatives
in Congress'', approved June 28, 1929 (2 U.S.C. 2a(a)), is
amended by striking ``the then existing number of
Representatives'' and inserting ``the number of
Representatives established with respect to the One Hundred
Tenth Congress''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1)
shall apply with respect to the regular decennial census
conducted for 2010 and each subsequent regular decennial
census.
(c) Special Rules For Period Prior to 2012
Reapportionment.--
(1) Transmittal of revised statement of apportionment by
president.--Not later than 30 days after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the President shall transmit to
Congress a revised version of the most recent statement of
apportionment submitted under section 22(a) of the Act
entitled ``An Act to provide for the fifteenth and subsequent
decennial censuses and to provide for apportionment of
Representatives in Congress'', approved June 28, 1929 (2
U.S.C. 2a(a)), to take into account this Act and the
amendments made by this Act.
(2) Report by clerk.--Not later than 15 calendar days after
receiving the revised version of the statement of
apportionment under paragraph (1), the Clerk of the House of
Representatives, in accordance with section 22(b) of such Act
(2 U.S.C. 2a(b)), shall send to the executive of each State a
certificate of the number of Representatives to which such
State is entitled under section 22 of such Act, and shall
submit
[[Page H2839]]
a report to the Speaker of the House of Representatives
identifying the State (other than the District of Columbia)
which is entitled to one additional Representative pursuant
to this section.
(3) Requirements for election of additional member.--During
the One Hundred Tenth Congress, the One Hundred Eleventh
Congress, and the One Hundred Twelfth Congress--
(A) notwithstanding the Act entitled ``An Act for the
relief of Doctor Ricardo Vallejo Samala and to provide for
congressional redistricting'', approved December 14, 1967 (2
U.S.C. 2c), the additional Representative to which the State
identified by the Clerk of the House of Representatives in
the report submitted under paragraph (2) is entitled shall be
elected from the State at large; and
(B) the other Representatives to which such State is
entitled shall be elected on the basis of the Congressional
districts in effect in the State for the One Hundred Ninth
Congress.
(d) Adjustment of Percentage Limitation on the Use of the
Preceding Year's Tax.--
(1) In general.--The table in clause (i) of section
6654(d)(1)(C) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating
to limitation on use of preceding year's tax) is amended by
striking ``110'' and inserting ``110.003''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendment made by this subsection
shall apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the
enactment of this Act.
SEC. 5. REPEAL OF OFFICE OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DELEGATE.
(a) Repeal of Office.--
(1) In general.--Sections 202 and 204 of the District of
Columbia Delegate Act (Public Law 91-405; sections 1-401 and
1-402, D.C. Official Code) are repealed, and the provisions
of law amended or repealed by such sections are restored or
revived as if such sections had not been enacted.
(2) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection
shall take effect on the date on which a Representative from
the District of Columbia takes office for the One Hundred
Tenth Congress.
(b) Conforming Amendments to District of Columbia Elections
Code of 1955.--The District of Columbia Elections Code of
1955 is amended as follows:
(1) In section 1 (sec. 1-1001.01, D.C. Official Code), by
striking ``the Delegate to the House of Representatives,''
and inserting ``the Representative in the Congress,'' .
(2) In section 2 (sec. 1-1001.02, D.C. Official Code)--
(A) by striking paragraph (6); and
(B) in paragraph (13), by striking ``the Delegate to
Congress for the District of Columbia,'' and inserting ``the
Representative in the Congress,''.
(3) In section 8 (sec. 1-1001.08, D.C. Official Code)--
(A) in the heading, by striking ``Delegate'' and inserting
``Representative''; and
(B) by striking ``Delegate,'' each place it appears in
subsections (h)(1)(A), (i)(1), and (j)(1) and inserting
``Representative in the Congress,''.
(4) In section 10 (sec. 1-1001.10, D.C. Official Code)--
(A) in subsection (a)(3)(A)--
(i) by striking ``or section 206(a) of the District of
Columbia Delegate Act'', and
(ii) by striking ``the office of Delegate to the House of
Representatives'' and inserting ``the office of
Representative in the Congress'';
(B) in subsection (d)(1), by striking ``Delegate,'' each
place it appears; and
(C) in subsection (d)(2)--
(i) by striking ``(A) In the event'' and all that follows
through ``term of office,'' and inserting ``In the event that
a vacancy occurs in the office of Representative in the
Congress before May 1 of the last year of the
Representative's term of office,'' and
(ii) by striking subparagraph (B).
(5) In section 11(a)(2) (sec. 1-1001.11(a)(2), D.C.
Official Code), by striking ``Delegate to the House of
Representatives,'' and inserting ``Representative in the
Congress,''.
(6) In section 15(b) (sec. 1-1001.15(b), D.C. Official
Code), by striking ``Delegate,'' and inserting
``Representative in the Congress,''.
(7) In section 17(a) (sec. 1-1001.17(a), D.C. Official
Code), by striking ``the Delegate to the Congress from the
District of Columbia'' and inserting ``the Representative in
the Congress''.
SEC. 7. NONSEVERABILITY OF PROVISIONS.
If any provision of this Act, or any amendment made by this
Act, is declared or held invalid or unenforceable, the
remaining provisions of this Act and any amendment made by
this Act shall be treated and deemed invalid and shall have
no force or effect of law.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Debate shall not exceed 1 hour and 20
minutes, with 60 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman
and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary, and 20
minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Smith) each will control 30 minutes, and the gentlewoman
from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) and the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) each will control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may
consume.
This is an historic moment indeed. I am honored to lead the floor
management of a bill that we have been waiting so long to debate and
hopefully move forward from the House of Representatives.
This is an important moment in American history. We must now act to
discontinue the disenfranchisement of citizens in the Nation's Capital.
We must act to complete the important unfinished business of our
democracy.
All of you here are all too familiar with the struggle for D.C.
voting rights. I remember Chairman Emanuel Celler, chairman of the
House Judiciary Committee, when the House gave the District a vote in
1967. I remember Delegate Walter Fauntroy's and Senator Ed Brooke's
pursuit of the District's representation in 1978. I have now had the
privilege of working with the distinguished gentlewoman, the Delegate
from the District of Columbia, Eleanor Holmes Norton, a tireless,
relentless, brilliant advocate of the effort that brings us here today.
Right now we are attempting to resolve what could not be resolved
before, through the bipartisan efforts of so many. Mr. Davis of
Virginia, Mr. Cannon of Utah, Mr. Matheson and Mr. Bishop have gotten
us this far today, but I would be remiss if I did not name the former
chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Jim Sensenbrenner, who
helped bring us so close to passage of this legislation in the last
Congress. I thank all of you for the important work that has led us to
this great and wonderful day.
Now, the bill before us today has a novel proposal, but it is one
that we have seen before. We are now here today to finish the important
work on this measure that we almost completed when we adjourned the
last Congress. We are here today to finish the job.
As the only democracy in the world where citizens living in the
capital city are denied their representation in the National
Legislature, we come here to repair this obvious defect. Nearly 600,000
people who call the District of Columbia home, who pay taxes, who fight
and die in the military, do not have a vote in the Congress. They do
not have a vote in the Congress. That is what brings us here today. I
am talking about people like one of its citizens, Andy Shallal, a local
business owner and an Iraqi American.
Thousands of American soldiers, including District residents, have
given their lives in fighting for democracy in Iraq. Because of their
sacrifice, Andy can vote for the national legislature in Iraq but is
denied a vote for his own Member of Congress in Washington, District of
Columbia.
So District residents like Andy and all those who share the
responsibilities of U.S. citizenship deserve voting representation in
this Congress, and I believe that most in this body agree with me. I
believe that H.R. 1433 is a sound policy response to this inequity.
While some have raised questions and we have debated, we have had
constitutional scholars from across the country join us in analyzing
the way that we have put this measure together. I am totally and
confidently satisfied that we have a bill that passes constitutional
muster. We have a bill that can finally end the disenfranchisement of
District residents.
The legislation relies obviously on Article I, section 8, clause 17,
which provides Congress with the authority to give the District a vote.
The Supreme Court has held that Congress's exclusive authority over the
District is ``national in the highest sense.'' The D.C. Circuit Court
has held that the Congress has ``extraordinary and plenary power'' over
the District. The District of Columbia Court of Appeals has found the
District Clause to be ``sweeping and inclusive in character.''
Distinguished conservatives, we emphasize that this is not a partisan
measure. Thoughtful scholars like Viet Dinh, judges and scholars like
Ken Starr, whom I have never cited or quoted before now, and our former
colleague Jack Kemp, just to name a few, agree that the Congress has
the power through simple legislation to give the District of Columbia a
vote.
We have used the District Clause to treat the District like a State
repeatedly: for diversity jurisdiction, for 11th amendment immunity,
for alcohol regulation, for interstate transportation, for apprentice
labor, for the collection
[[Page H2840]]
of State income taxes, the list goes on and on. Surely, we cannot say
that we cannot give them, the District residents, a vote in the same
way that we have handled so many other matters.
I am confident that we can pair the District of Columbia with Utah
and give Utah an at-large seat. Article I, section 4 gives Congress
ultimate authority over Federal elections. The one person, one vote
principle will be left intact. No vote will be compromised or diluted.
None of their vote will be lost, nor will it be expanded. Utah voters
will be given an equal opportunity to elect an at-large Representative
on a temporary basis and a District Representative.
This fight has been long, 200 years too long. We can debate this
issue to no end, but at the end of the day, if District residents
remain disenfranchised, we ought to be ashamed. We have a sound,
bipartisan proposal before us, and I am happy to entertain the
discussion on both sides of the aisle that will proceed at this time.
I want to thank those of our Republican colleagues in the House who
have already seen fit to make it clear that they, too, will be joining
with us to make this a bipartisan solution to an old problem. I am
proud to think and hope that D.C. disenfranchisement will come to an
end.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Madam Speaker, I oppose this legislation because it is clearly
unconstitutional. While the bill may be well-intentioned, as Members of
Congress, we swear an oath to support our Constitution. We cannot gloss
over its deficiencies.
At the Judiciary Committee hearing on this bill, Professor Jonathan
Turley, someone the majority consults frequently for his views, said,
``Permit me to be blunt, I consider this act to be the most
premeditated unconstitutional act by Congress in decades.''
Supporters of this bill claim Congress owes the authority to enact
this bill under a broad reading of the so-called District Clause in
Article I, section 8. However, Article I, section 2 says, ``The House
of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second
Year by the People of the several States.'' Since D.C. is not a State,
it cannot have a voting Member in the House.
This was an issue that was clearly raised, debated and rejected by
the Founding Fathers. Alexander Hamilton offered an amendment to the
Constitution during the New York ratification convention that would
have allowed Congress to provide the District with congressional
representation, but his amendment was rejected by the convention on
July 22, 1788.
More recently in 2000, a Federal district court here in D.C. spoke on
the issue, stating, ``We conclude from our analysis of the text that
the Constitution does not contemplate that the District may serve as a
State for purposes of the apportionment of congressional
representatives.''
The House Judiciary Committee has already spoken on this point as
well in the 95th Congress. Under the leadership of Democratic Chairman
Peter Rodino, the Judiciary Committee reported out a constitutional
amendment to do what this bill purports to be able to do by statute.
The report accompanying that constitutional amendment stated the
following, ``If the citizens of the District are to have voting
representation in the Congress, a constitutional amendment is
essential; statutory action alone will not suffice.''
Congress passed that constitutional amendment in 1978, but it failed
to get the approval of three-quarters of the States over a 7-year
period. In fact, only 16 of the 38 States required for its ratification
supported the amendment.
So what is being attempted by the legislation before us today is
something long recognized as requiring a constitutional amendment that
the vast majority of States have already failed to approve. Proponents
of this legislation cite a 1949 Supreme Court case called Tidewater,
but the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service issued a report
analyzing that case. It concluded that ``at least six of the Justices
who participated in what appears to be the most relevant Supreme Court
case, National Mutual Insurance Co. of the District of Columbia v.
Tidewater Transfer Co., authored opinions rejecting the proposition
that Congress's power under the District Clause was sufficient to
effectuate structural changes to the political structures of the
Federal Government.
``Further, the remaining three judges, who found that Congress could
grant diversity jurisdiction to District of Columbia citizens despite
the lack of such jurisdiction in Article III, specifically limited
their opinion to instances where there was no extension of anymore
fundamental right,'' such as the right to vote for a Member of
Congress.
{time} 1230
The unconstitutional approach of this bill is completely unnecessary.
Most of the District of Columbia, other than a few Federal buildings,
could simply be returned to the State of Maryland. That process of
retrocession is clearly allowed by the Constitution. It would grant
representation to those in Washington D.C., by a simple majority vote,
and they would then have representation in both the House and Senate,
an improvement over this bill that limits representation only to the
House.
Any discrepancies regarding the number of electorates granted to D.C.
by the 23rd amendment could easily be corrected through a
constitutional amendment once D.C. Members were represented in Congress
through retrocession. Madam Speaker, even conceding for purposes of
argument the proponents' interpretation of the vast breadth of the
District clause, this bill unfairly subjects many citizens to unequal
treatment.
H.R. 1433 grants Utah an additional Representative that will run at-
large or statewide. The at-large provision creates a situation this
country has not seen since the development of the Supreme Court's line
of cases affirming the principle of ``one man, one vote.''
Under this provision, voters in Utah would be able to vote for two
Representatives, their district representative and the at-large
representative, whereas voters in every other State would only be able
to vote for their one district representative. The result would be that
Utah voters would have disproportionately more voting power compared to
the voters of every other State.
There is no question D.C. residents have fought bravely in wars and
served their country in a variety of ways. That is interesting, even
heartrending, but irrelevant to whether or not this legislation is
constitutional.
I also ask this House to consider the serious, practical consequences
of passing this legislation. The inevitable legal challenge to this
bill could produce legislative chaos by placing into doubt any future
legislation passed in Congress by a one-vote margin.
Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill because it is
clearly unconstitutional, and, if enacted, could lead to years of
protracted legislation.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds, and I include
for the Record the 25 legal scholars of constitutional authority who
have already weighed in on this bill, plus the former elected officials
and former Senators and Members of Congress and Presidential appointees
that have all examined this with great care and find that it is not
constitutionally defective.
DC Vote,
Washington, DC, March 12, 2007.
25 Legal Scholars Support Constitutionality of DC Voting Rights
Dear Representative: DC residents pay federal income taxes,
serve on juries and die in wars to defend American democracy,
but they do not have voting representation in the Congress.
This lack of representation is inconsistent with our
nation's core democratic principles. Justice Hugo Black put
it well in Wesberry v. Sanders in 1964: ``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. Other rights, even the most basic,
are illusory if the right to vote is undermined.''
Congress is currently considering granting voting rights to
Americans living in Washington, DC. Lawmakers have been faced
with questions about the constitutionality of extending the
right to vote to residents of a ``non-state.''
As law professors and scholars, we would like to address
these questions and put to
[[Page H2841]]
rest any concerns about the constitutionality of extending
the right of representation to residents of the District.
While the language of the Constitution literally requires
that House members be elected ``by the People of the Several
states,'' Congress has not always applied this language so
literally. For example, the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens
Absentee Voting Act allows U.S. citizens living abroad to
vote in congressional elections in their last state of
residence--even if they are no longer citizens there, pay any
taxes there, or have any intent to return.
To fully protect the interests of people living in the
capital, the Framers gave Congress extremely broad authority
over all matters relating to the federal district under
Article I, Sec. 8, clause 17 (the ``District Clause'').
Courts have ruled that this clause gives Congress
``extraordinary and plenary power'' over DC and have upheld
congressional treatment of DC as a ``state'' for purposes of
diversity jurisdiction and interstate commerce, among other
things. Article III provides that courts may hear cases
``between citizens of different states'' (diversity
jurisdiction). The Supreme Court initially ruled that under
this language, DC residents could not sue residents of other
states. But in 1940, Congress began treating DC as a state
for this purpose--a law upheld in D.C. v. Tidewater Transfer
Co. (1949).
The Constitution also allows Congress to regulate commerce
``among the several states,'' which, literally, would exclude
DC. But Congress' authority to treat DC as a ``state'' for
Commerce Clause purposes was upheld in Stoughtenburg v.
Hennick (1889).
We believe, under the same analysis of the Constitution,
that Congress has the power through ``simple'' legislation to
provide voting representation in Congress for DC residents.
Sincerely,
Sheryll D. Cashin, Georgetown University Law Center; Viet
D. Dinh, Georgetown University Law Center; Charles J.
Ogletree, Harvard Law School; Jamin Raskin, American
University Washington College of Law; Samuel R.
Bagenstos, Washington University Law School; Brian L.
Baker, San Joaquin College of Law; William W. Bratton,
Georgetown University Law Center; Richard Pierre
Claude, University of Maryland; Sherman Cohn,
Georgetown University Law Center; Peter Edelman,
Georgetown University Law Center; James Forman Jr.,
Georgetown University Law Center; David A. Gantz, The
University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law.
Michael Gottesman, Georgetown University Law Center;
Michael Greenberger, University of Maryland; Pat King,
Georgetown University Law Center; Charles R. Lawrence
III, Georgetown University Law Center; Paul Steven
Miller, University of Washington School of Law; James
Oldham, Georgetown University Law Center; Christopher
L. Peterson University of Florida, Levin College of
Law; Robert Pitofsky, Georgetown University Law Center;
David Schultz, University of Minnesota; Girardeau A.
Spann, Georgetown University Law Center; Ronald S.
Sullivan Jr., Yale Law School; Roger Wilkins, George
Mason University; Wendy Williams, Georgetown University
Law Center.
____
DC Vote,
Washington, DC, March 12, 2007.
Re 25 former elected and appointed officials support DC
Voting Rights Act.
Dear Member of Congress: We are writing to ask you to
extend the basic American right of voting representation in
Congress to Americans living in our nation's capital.
Citizens living in Washington, DC pay federal taxes, serve
on juries, and send their family members to protect our
nation during times of war. They should no longer be denied
the very essence of our democratic ideals.
Representative Tom Davis, Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton,
and many others have reached across party lines in crafting a
bill, the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of
2007 (DC Voting Rights Act, H.R. 1433), which corrects this
injustice by providing Washingtonians with a full voting
member of the U.S. House of Representatives for the first
time in the history of our country. These members of Congress
should be congratulated for their principled courage and
patriotism.
The time has come for all DC residents to have a vote in
our national legislature. We ask that you support this bill
so that Washingtonians will enjoy the fundamental, democratic
right to representation--a right which, as a nation, we are
promoting all around the world.
Sincerely,
Jack Kemp, Julius W. Becton, Jr., Ed Brooke, Lawrence
Eagleburger, Eric Holder, Thomas P. Melady, Susan
Molinari, J.C. Watts, Harris Wofford.
Clifford Alexander, Jim Blanchard, Dale Bumpers, Peter
Edelman, Frank Keating, Kweisi Mfume, Sharon Pratt,
Togo West.
John Anderson, Sherwood Boehlert, Tom Daschle, Alexis
Herman, Timothy May, George Mitchell, Michael Steele,
Anthony A. Williams.
Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished majority leader.
Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, this important legislation, the District of
Columbia House Voting Rights Act, is designed to do one thing,
enfranchise Americans fully with a voting representative in the House
of Representatives. I have the great honor of representing the great
State of Maryland. Maryland, at the request of the Federal Government,
gave some square miles of its State to our Federal Government and to
the people of America.
At that time there were Marylanders living, just a few, but
Marylanders living within the confines of what was to become the
District of Columbia. Now, this was post-1787, so that the miracle in
Philadelphia did not contemplate disenfranchising those voters in the
various States, as my friend from Texas mentioned, because the
residents that then became, because of the generosity of the State of
Maryland, residents of that Federal district, were then residents of
the several States.
Washington, D.C. is the only capital in a democracy in the world, in
the entire world, that does not have a voting representative in its
parliament, in the world. Clearly, the successor residents of the
District of Columbia succeed residents of the several States. The
continued disenfranchisement of more than half a million Americans is
unconscionable, is indefensible and wrong.
Since 1801, when Washington, D.C. became this Nation's capital, the
citizens of the District of Columbia have not had representation in the
Congress, not in the House of Representatives and not in the Senate. It
is wrong, as a matter of principle, because District citizens pay
Federal taxes, sit on juries and serve on our Armed Forces, like all
other Americans who enjoy full representation in this body do.
If they move tomorrow to Maryland or to Virginia or to Texas or to
California, they will be fully enfranchised. They are not second-class
citizens, but the area in which they live is being treated as a second-
class area, this, the Nation's capital. You cannot cite another capital
in the world that does that if they allow any of their voters to be
represented in a true democratic institution.
It is wrong politically, because District citizens since 1801 have
effectively been a ward of Congress without the opportunity to make
their voice felt on the legislation that affects only them. Ironically
on this bill, we are going to again have a motion to recommit, which
affects only the residents of the District of Columbia.
It is wrong, I suggest to you, morally as well, because the United
States professes to have the truest form of representative government
in human history. We are proud of that, rightfully so. Yet we deprive
the citizens of this Nation's capital of their voice in their national
legislature.
Let me add, the United States is the only representative democracy,
as I have said, that does that. The absence of representation in
Congress for District citizens underscores the failure of the Congress
to use the authority vested in it, by the Constitution, to correct an
injustice.
I want to say to my friends in this body, so many of you have voted
``aye'' on propositions that only recently the Supreme Court of the
United States has said are unconstitutional. You put in language to
say, oh, well, it's constitutional because of X, Y and Z, to try to
substitute our judgment for the judgment of the Supreme Court of the
United States, but repeatedly you have voted for legislation which the
Supreme Court has said is unconstitutional, and you know it.
We have spent $379 billion, 3,200 lives. We will vote tomorrow on a
bill that seeks to spend $100 billion more so that the citizens of
Baghdad, the citizens of Baghdad can have a parliament in which the
citizens of Baghdad have a vote; but too many will vote not to give the
same right to our sisters and brothers who live in the District of
Columbia.
The authority I refer to for the constitutionality of this is, of
course, Article I, section 8 of the Constitution, is the so-called seat
of government clause, under which ``The Congress shall have power . . .
to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever,'' exclusive
legislation in all cases whatsoever, for as I remind you, those
residents of the several States or their successors, who are now
residents of the District of Columbia.
[[Page H2842]]
Plain and simple, this sweeping language gives Congress
``extraordinary and plenary'' powers over our Nation's capital city,
including the authority to adopt legislation to enfranchise the
District's 550,000 Americans with a full vote in this House.
I am far from alone in my view of Article I, section 8. Twenty-five
legal scholars, which have just been entered into the Record, make that
assertion.
As the chairman of the committee, I am not used to quoting Kenneth
Starr, and I quote Kenneth Starr, not as the supreme expert, but
certainly as not a partisan of my party.
In fact, I would remind every Member of this House, this bill was
reported out of the Republican-chaired, Republican-majority Government
Reform Committee just last Congress.
Mr. Davis is a cosponsor, not only a Republican leader, but the
former chairman of a committee and former chairman of the Republican
Congressional Campaign Committee, not just a back-bencher, but a leader
in the party, who said this is constitutional, but in any event, it is
the right thing to do.
Mr. Starr's tightly reasoned testimony before the House Government
Reform Committee in 2004 in favor of the substance of today's measure
should be required reading for every Member of the body who believes
that somehow this may be a partisan vote. In fact, as we mentioned, we
give to Utah as well, as has been historical practice, to usually do
two at a time, as we did Alaska and Hawaii.
That doesn't unusually enfranchise, I would suggest, Utah's voters. I
come from a State that had an at-large Representative for most of the
1960s. His name was Carlton Sickles. He lived in the county in which I
grew up. He was an at-large Representative, yes, before Reynolds v.
Sims and Baker v. Carr, but that was for the State legislature
purposes. He was an at-large Representative in the State of Maryland. I
am not sure that anybody here served with him.
We, the Members of this House, must never be seduced into thinking
there is such a thing as settled injustice. Here me, settled injustice.
The author of the Dred Scott decision was a Marylander. There is a
statue of him, a bust of him, as you enter the old Supreme Court
Chamber.
That was the constitutional law. It was wrong. It was wrong legally,
it was wrong ethically, and it was certainly wrong morally. It is time,
my friends, in this body, today, to stand up, speak out for democracy
and justice for our fellow Americans. If we can fight for democracy in
Baghdad, we can vote for democracy in Washington, D.C.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
Madam Speaker, I certainly agree with the majority leader on one
point that he made and that is that Washington, D.C. is distinctive.
However, it is especially distinctive because it is the only capital in
the world that exists under the U.S. Constitution, and that is why this
bill is unconstitutional.
Madam Speaker, I include for printing in the Record the Statement of
Administration Policy in opposition to this bill.
Statement of Administration Policy: H.R. 1433--District of Columbia
House Voting Rights Act of 2007
(del. norton (d) district of columbia and 17 cosponsors)
The Administration strongly opposes passage of H.R. 1433.
The bill violates the Constitution's provisions governing the
composition and election of the United States Congress.
Accordingly, if H.R. 1433 were presented to the President,
his senior advisers would recommend that he veto the bill.
The Constitution limits representation in the House to
representatives of States. Article I, Section 2 provides:
``The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members
chosen every second Year by the People of the several States,
and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications
requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the
State legislature.'' The Constitution also contains 11 other
provisions expressly linking congressional representation to
Statehood.
The District of Columbia is not a State. Accordingly,
congressional representation for the District of Columbia
would require a constitutional amendment. Advocates of
congressional representation for the District have long
acknowledged this. As the House Judiciary Committee stated in
recommending passage of such a constitutional amendment in
1975:
``If the citizens of the District are to have voting
representation in the Congress, a constitutional amendment is
essential; statutory action alone will not suffice. This is
the case because provisions for elections of Senators and
Representatives in the Constitution are stated in terms of
the States, and the District of Columbia is not a State.''
Courts have reached the same conclusion. In 2000, for
example, a three-judge panel concluded ``that the
Constitution does not contemplate that the District may serve
as a state for purposes of the apportionment of congressional
representatives.'' Adams v. Clinton, 90 F. Supp. 2d 35, 46-47
(D.D.C. 2000). The Supreme Court affirmed that decision. And
just two months ago, Congress's own Research Service found
that, without a constitutional amendment, it is ``likely that
the Congress does not have authority to grant voting
representation in the House of Representatives to the
District of Columbia.''
Recent claims that H.R. 1433 should be viewed as an
exercise of Congress's ``exclusive'' legislative authority
over the District of Columbia as the seat of the Federal
government are not persuasive. Congress's exercise of
legislative authority over the District of Columbia is
qualified by other provisions of the Constitution, including
the Article I requirement that representation in the House of
Representatives is limited to the ``several States.''
Congress cannot vary that constitutional requirement under
the guise of the ``exclusive legislation'' clause, a clause
that provides the same legislative authority over Federal
enclaves like military bases as it does over the District.
For all the foregoing reasons, enacting H.R. 1433's
extension of congressional representation to the District
would be unconstitutional. It would also call into question
(by subjecting to constitutional challenge in the courts) the
validity of all legislation passed by the reconstituted House
of Representatives.
Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Sensenbrenner), a former chairman of the Judiciary Committee.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, the Judiciary Committee is supposed
to be the legislative guardian of the Constitution. Unfortunately in
this instance, the majority gets an F. This bill is fraught with
constitutional questions.
All I need to do is to go back to the report that was issued by then-
Chairman Peter Rodino, a Democratic and a liberal icon, when he
reported out a constitutional amendment enfranchising the District of
Columbia in 1978. That committee report clearly said that giving a vote
to the representative of the District of Columbia in this House could
not be done statutorily.
{time} 1245
And that is exactly what is happening today. And not only can't it be
done statutorily, but the Rules Committee last night played a partisan
card. It rejected all proposed amendments, including constructive
amendments that eliminate some of the legal and constitutional problems
relating to the at-large seat in Utah, as well as an amendment offered
by my friend from Texas (Mr. Smith) to have an expedited review of the
United States Supreme Court, a review that we gave to the McCain-
Feingold law on campaign finance.
There are constitutional questions on this issue. And in the year
2000, the Federal court of D.C. expressly said that, ``We conclude from
our analysis that the text of the Constitution does not contemplate
that the District may serve as a State for purposes of apportionment of
congressional representatives.'' That case was Adams v. Clinton that
was decided in the year 2000. Now, that was the more recent case than
the Tidewater case which is being used by the proponents of this
legislation as saying that the District clause allows us to do this.
Now, rather than enfranchising the citizens of the District in a
constitutionally questionable manner, why not do it in a way that is
very clearly constitutional? There are three ways to do this, all of
which have been rejected by the majority. One is to repropose the
amendment to the Constitution which failed in 1978. Second is to admit
the non-Federal part of the District as a separate State, with two
Senators and two Representatives. That was rejected in 1993, but could
be reintroduced. And the third is to retrocede the non-Federal part of
the District to Maryland. We can do it the right way. Those are the
right ways; this is the wrong way.
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to point out
that a constitutional amendment could take 10 years, who knows, to have
a part of a State ceded back. The three methods that have been
suggested by
[[Page H2843]]
the former chairman of Judiciary Committee, who has worked very hard on
this, are, in effect, impractical.
Madam Speaker, I am pleased now to recognize the chairman of the
Constitutional Subcommittee on the Judiciary, Mr. Nadler, who has done
extraordinary work in this regard, 5 minutes.
Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, it is a disgrace, a blot on our Nation
that the citizens of our Capital do not have a voice in Congress.
Whatever technical issues there may be with respect to rectifying
this problem, we must never lose sight of the fact that our democracy
is permanently stained by the disenfranchisement of a large group of
our citizens who pay taxes, serve in our wars, work in our government,
and bear all the responsibilities, but do not have all the rights of
citizenship.
Whether you took a cab to work today or rode the Metro or bought a
cup of coffee or walked down the sidewalk or were protected by a police
officer, your safety, your livelihood, every aspect of your life was
made possible by people who have no vote in our democratic society.
There is no excuse for that.
Now, we have heard from people who say, well, we should change this,
but let's amend the Constitution. We have tried that. Very difficult.
We have heard from people who say, well, we should change this, but
let's do it another way that will take forever and that haven't worked.
This way we are told, doing it by statute, giving the District of
Columbia a vote in the House by statute, is unconstitutional.
Well, it is not unconstitutional. The fact is the Constitution says
that the Congress shall have power to exercise exclusive legislation in
all cases whatsoever over such District, as may, by cession of
particular States, become the seat of the Government of the United
States. Exclusive jurisdiction. Very plenary power.
The Constitution also says in Article III, discussing the powers of
Federal courts: The judicial power shall extend to controversies
between citizens of different States, so-called diversity jurisdiction.
One of the earlier cases cited by the Supreme Court was that citizens
of the District of Columbia have standing to go into Federal court and
sue citizens of a different State, of any State under diversity
jurisdiction, because the District of Columbia, for that purpose at
least, is considered a State, and the Supreme Court was very clear on
this. And if the District of Columbia is a State for purposes of
diversity jurisdiction under Article III of the Constitution, there is
no reason why Congress cannot take advantage of that fact and legislate
under its exclusive jurisdiction clause that the District of Columbia
is a State for purposes of representation in the House of
Representatives.
The judicial cases are fairly clear. We have ample constitutional
authority to do this, and we should take that up. Let those who are
opposed to American citizens having taxation without representation,
let those who are supportive of American citizens be subjected to
taxation without representation, let those who are opposed to American
citizens having the full rights of citizens, let them go to court and
argue that it is unconstitutional. Let us assert our authority, because
we believe it is constitutional. The courts will ultimately decide if
the Bush administration continues to oppose this bill and has
threatened to veto.
What I don't hear from the administration is any concern about the
injustice of depriving D.C. citizens of the right to vote, which speaks
volumes about the administration's hostility to voting rights.
If we are to have the audacity to hold ourselves out to the world as
a beacon of freedom and democracy, if we want to lecture other
countries about the importance of freedom and democracy, as this
Congress and the President regularly seek to do, we need to clean up
our own House. I urge passage of this bill.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from California, Mr. Daniel E. Lungren, a member of the Judiciary
Committee and a former attorney general of the State of California.
Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Speaker, after listening
to several Members on the other side of the aisle, I can only come to
one conclusion; and that is, the U.S. Constitution is an inconvenient
thing.
We have heard that it may take too long to do it the constitutional
way. We have even heard suggested here that, if you oppose this, you
are against voting rights.
Well, as a former prosecutor, I can tell you I am absolutely, morally
convinced of certain people who are not convicted of crimes they
committed because of constitutional protections given them during
trial; the Constitution was inconvenient, the Constitution did not
allow us to do justice. But the Constitution prevailed, because if we
ignore the Constitution, we ignore the very compact which is the basis
of our relationship with our government. The vote today is more about
the representational status of the District of Columbia in this body.
It goes to the heart of constitutional governance.
Some in this House would have us believe that the Constitution is so
sophisticated, so foreign, so strange that the words used, that only a
few people can define its meaning, that the people of America are not
capable of understanding the words of the Constitution, and, therefore,
we should genuflect at the altar of the elite.
Well, let's look at the words. Article I, section 2 states very
simply: The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members
chosen by the people of the several States. By the people of the
several States.
It says in Article I, section 2: No person shall be a representative
who shall not have attained the age of 25, been 7 years a citizens of
the United States, and who shall not when elected be an inhabitant of
the State in which he shall be chosen.
Madam Speaker, those words are so simple, and yet we try to make them
so complicated. Let's at least uphold the Constitution in this debate.
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds. I refer the
former attorney general of the State of California to the list we have
right now about 10 decisions in which reviews, under the constitutional
authority, D.C. as a State.
Madam Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 5 minutes to the
distinguished lady, a member of the committee and who has served with
great distinction on the House Judiciary Committee for constitutional
questions, Sheila Jackson-Lee of Houston, Texas.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Conyers, may I pay tribute to you? It
gives me such a privilege to be able to come to this floor with you as
the chairperson of the House Judiciary Committee, along with the
ranking member, who is a friend and colleague from Texas. But it is a
special honor, and it humbles many of us, because a lot of us were not
here for the debate on the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voter
Rights Act of 1965. Many Americans think that that bill only pertains
and helps people of color, but really what it does is it restores that
legislation, the value and the preciousness of the right to vote for
all Americans. I am gratified that Chairman Conyers, who has a history
with restoring the rights of Americans to vote, now finds himself on
the floor in the doorway of history to be able to reaffirm the
Constitution.
And I heard my good friend, and I am glad that you will hear from my
colleague from Texas, Congressman Al Green, who spent a few days on the
bench and I think would recognize a Constitution when he would see it.
But I think this is important, because if the American people are
listening, there is some suggestion, what kind of irreverent actions
are occurring on this floor? Why are we ignoring the Constitution? And
I take great umbrage with that. I am sensitive to that. My very fabric
of my existence is embedded in the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendment. I
want the Constitution to be cherished, and I want it to be right.
So let me just recount for you why we can move from one section to
the next, and it relates to the constitutionality of what we are doing.
And I would only hope that my friends would not be rejecting this bill
because, in fact, it is the District of Columbia. And let me remind
America that Utah is given an opportunity for its citizens to be
represented.
But in 1820, the Supreme Court held that Congress could impose
Federal taxes on the District, and it was related to the provision in
here that says
[[Page H2844]]
representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several
States. So we tax them based upon language in the Constitution that
they equal the States.
Then in 1889, the Supreme Court found that the constitutional
prohibition against State laws that interfere with commerce applies to
States and the District of Columbia, again equating the District of
Columbia to States.
And then in 1934, the Supreme Court found that Congress could treat
the District of Columbia as a State.
So in the Constitution it says that: The House of Representatives
shall be composed of Members chosen every second year by the people of
several States.
But it also says that this Congress has jurisdiction in clause 17
under section 8 over the District of Columbia, and that is what we are
doing here today. We are correcting a wrong, an ill. We are correcting
a disease. We are equating this city to the rights of Iraqis, who are
now able to vote for all of those they want to vote for, albeit it is
in a troubled situation.
And so I would simply commend my colleagues to this, and to suggest
that there was something wrong in the rule for not asking for an
expedited Supreme Court review, my friends, the Supreme Court will be
able to deliberate on this particular legislation in due time and be
able to render a decision and expedited request warrants or suggests
there should be a crisis. There was not an expedited request in the
election of 2000, and the Supreme Court decided it in 4 or 5 days. For
me, that was an emergency.
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, if the gentlelady will yield, I ask her,
why would we be asking for special standing, we in the Congress? Why
would we be asking for an expedited review? Can't the courts decide who
gets either of those two special privileges to come to the front of the
line?
{time} 1300
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Let me thank the gentleman for his inquiry.
He made a very good point: can't the courts reconcile the issues
between the two parties on their own expedited time. They can. And that
is the example I used with the issue in the election of 2000. As you
well know, that case, Gore v. Bush, went to the United States Supreme
Court on their own expediting, and a decision was made between four or
five days.
My friends, this is a smoke-and-mirror issue. We welcome the Supreme
Court's review. But today, we are holding up the Constitution, and I
hope that as we hold it up, we will reflect upon those whose blood has
been shed on behalf of this country, that we are giving them the right
to vote legally, and under the Constitution.
Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1433, the District of
Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2007, and thank the chairman of the
Judiciary Committee for his leadership in shepherding this important
piece of legislation to the floor. Today we remove a stain that has
blighted our Nation for more than 200 years of shame and correct an
injustice to the citizens of the District of Columbia.
H.R. 1433 would permanently expand the U.S. House of Representatives
from 435 to 437 seats, providing a new, at-large seat to Utah and a
vote to the District of Columbia. Based on the 2000 Census, Utah is the
State next in line to enlarge its congressional delegation. The bill
does not give the District statehood, nor does it give the District
representation in the Senate. Rather, in H.R. 1433 Congress is simply
treating the District as a congressional district for the purposes of
granting full House representation, as it can pursuant to the grant of
plenary power over the District of Columbia conferred by the
Constitution in article I, section 8, clause 17.
At the outset, let me address the claim that H.R. 1433 is a weak
foundation upon which to base the District's voting rights in the House
because it is a statutory rather a constitutionally based remedy. The
argument should be rejected for the simple reason that it makes the
perfect the enemy of the good. It is like asking a person to remain
homeless while she saves to buy a house even though she has enough
money to rent an apartment.
Madam Speaker, let us not lose sight of one indisputable and shameful
fact: Nearly 500,000 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.
Madam Speaker, if a person can be called upon to pay Federal taxes
and serve in the Armed Forces of the United States, then he or she
should at least have the opportunity to vote for a representative who
could at least cast a symbolic vote in this Chamber on critical matters
facing our Nation--issues like war and peace, equality and justice.
Madam Speaker, taxation without representation is tyranny. It is
unconscionable that more than a half million American citizens are
being unconscionably denied a vote and a voice in the most important
legislative body in the world.
As a supporter of freedom, democracy, and equality, I believe that it
is long overdue for the citizens of the District of Columbia to have a
Representative in Congress who can vote on the vital legislation
considered in this body.
Madam Speaker, it is wrong that we must be reminded daily by license
plates in the District of Columbia that ``Taxation without
representation is tyranny.'' The people in Boston felt so strongly
about this in 1775 that they rebelled in Boston Harbor, launching the
``Boston Tea Party.''
The principle that political authority derives from the consent of
the government is no less applicable when it comes to the District of
Columbia. Let us be clear. There is no dispute that hundreds of
thousands of American citizens reside in the District of Columbia. We
all agree that universal suffrage is the hallmark of a democratic
regime, of which the United States is the world's leading exemplar.
None of us believes it is fair that citizens of the District of
Columbia pay Federal taxes, risk life and limb fighting wars abroad to
protect American democracy and extend the blessings of liberty to
people living in foreign lands. In short, there is no moral reason to
deny the citizens of the District of Columbia the right to full
representation in Congress. The only question is whether Congress has
the will and the constitutional authority to do so. As I will discuss,
Congress has always had the constitutional authority. For the last 12
years, we have not had the will; but now we do.
Congress Can Grant Voting Rights to the District Under the District
Clause
As Professor Dinh argued in his powerful testimony before this
Committee, Congress has ample constitutional authority to enact H.R.
1433 under the Constitution's ``District Clause.'' Art. I, Sec. 8, cl.
17. The District Clause empowers Congress to ``exercise exclusive
Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District'' and thus
grants Congress plenary and exclusive authority to legislate all
matters concerning the District. The text, history and structure of the
Constitution, as well as judicial decisions and pronouncements in
analogous or related contexts, confirms that this broad legislative
authority extends to the granting of congressional voting rights for
District residents.
The District Clause, which has been described by no less a
constitutional authority as Judge Kenneth Starr as ``majestic in its
scope,'' gives Congress plenary and exclusive power to legislate for
the District. Courts have held that the District Clause is ``sweeping
and inclusive in character'' and gives Congress ``extraordinary and
plenary power'' over the District. It empowers Congress to legislate
within the District for ``every proper purpose of government.''
Congress therefore possesses ``full and unlimited jurisdiction 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,'' subject, of course, to the negative
prohibitions of the Constitution.
Although, the District is not a State for purposes of Congress's
article I, section 2, clause 1, which states that Members of the House
are chosen ``by the people of the several States,'' this fact is not
dispositive of Congress's authority under the District Clause to give
residents of the District the same rights as citizens of a State. Since
1805, the Supreme Court has recognized that Congress has the authority
to treat the District like a State, and Congress has repeatedly
exercised this authority. No court has ever sustained a challenge to
Congress's exercise of its power under the District Clause.
Two related Supreme Court cases illustrate this point. In Hepburn v.
Ellzey, 6 U.S. 445 (1805), the Court held that the diversity
jurisdiction provision of article III, section 2 of the U.S.
Constitution excluded citizens of the District of Columbia. The Court
observed, however, that it was ``extraordinary'' that residents of the
District should be denied the same access to Federal courts provided to
aliens and State residents, and invited Congress to craft a solution,
noting that the matter was ``a subject for legislative, not judicial
consideration.''
Congress accepted that invitation 145 years later and enacted
legislation that explicitly granted District residents access to
Federal
[[Page H2845]]
courts on diversity grounds. That legislation was upheld by the Supreme
Court in 1949 in National Mutual Insurance Company v. Tidewater
Transfer Company, 337 U.S. 582 (1949). A plurality of the Court led by
Justice Jackson held that Congress could for this purpose treat
District residents as though they were State residents pursuant to its
authority under the District Clause. The two concurring justices would
have gone even further; they argued that Hepburn should be overruled
and that the District should be considered a State for purposes of
Article III.
Tidewater strongly supports Congress's authority to provide the
District a House Representative via simple legislation. As the
plurality explained, because Congress unquestionably had the greater
power to provide District residents diversity-based jurisdiction in
special article I courts, it surely could accomplish the more limited
result of granting District residents diversity-based access to
existing article III courts. Similarly, Congress's authority to grant
the District full rights of statehood--or grant its residents voting
rights through retrocession--by simple legislation suggests that it
may, by simple legislation, take the more modest step of providing
citizens of the District with a voice in the House of Representatives.
Indeed, since Congress has granted voting representation to residents
of Federal enclaves in Evans v. Cornman, 398 U.S. 419 (1970), and to
Americans living abroad through the Overseas Voting Act, there is no
reason to suppose that Congress has less ability to provide voting
representation to the residents of the Nation's capital.
II. Congress May Direct the Next-Entitled State to Elect Its Additional
Representative at Large
H.R. 1433 also grants an additional congressional seat to the State
of Utah as the next-entitled State and directs that State to elect its
additional Representative at large, rather than creating an additional
single-Member district. Congress plainly has the authority to do so.
This statutory scheme does not violate the ``one person, one vote''
principle.
As the Supreme Court held in Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964),
``the command of Article I, Section 2 [of the Constitution], that
Representatives be chosen `by the People of the Several States' means
that as nearly as is practicable one man's vote in a congressional
election is to be worth as much as another's.'' In that case the Court
struck down a Georgia apportionment statute because it created a
congressional district that had two-to-three times as many residents as
Georgia's nine other congressional districts. The Court stated:
The apportionment statute thus contracts the value of some
votes and expands that of others. If the Federal Constitution
intends that when qualified voters elect members of Congress
each vote be given as much weight as any other vote, then
this statute cannot stand.
``One person, one vote'' concerns arise when congressional districts
within a State contain different numbers of residents, diluting the
voting power of residents in the district with more residents. In
contrast, here the proposed temporary ``at large'' district in Utah
does not dilute the voting power of any Utah voter.
When Utah holds its at-large election for the new fourth seat, Utah
voters may cast a vote in their existing district and in the statewide
election for the fourth seat. While it is true that the statewide ``at
large'' district will necessarily contain more residents than the other
districts, the establishment of that ``at large'' district would create
no constitutional dilution concerns. Each person's vote in the ``at
large'' district would have equal influence, and the opportunity to
cast that vote would not alter in any way the value of that person's
vote in her own smaller district.
Nor does a potential ``one person, one vote'' challenge arise on the
ground that Utah residents vote in two elections while residents of
other States with single-member districts would vote only once. First,
the Supreme Court has never held that the ``one person, one vote''
principle applies to the apportionment process. Indeed, the Court has
held that Congress is entitled to substantial deference in its
apportionment decisions. Second, the proposed at-large election does
not give residents of the State more or less voting power than the
residents of States with single-Member districts. The example cited by
Richard Bress, one of the witnesses who testified before the Judiciary
Committee in support of the bill, illustrates why this is so.
Suppose that State A and State B have roughly the same population and
are each entitled to four Representatives. State A holds an at-large
election for all four of its Representatives, while State B divides its
Representatives and voters into four districts. State A's statewide
district would have a population four times the size of each district
in State B. As compared to the single-district voter in State B, the
``at-large'' voter in State A has a one-fourth interest in each of four
Representatives. The single-district voter in State B has a whole
interest in one Representative. But in both scenarios, each voter has,
in the aggregate, one whole voting interest.
Similarly, as compared to a State with four single-Member districts,
the voters in Utah's existing three districts would have
proportionately less influence in the election of the Representative
from their own district, but would gain a fractional interest in the
State's at-large Representative. In short, Utah residents would have no
more--and no less--voting power than residents of any other State.
III. Conclusion
For these reasons, I believe H.R. 1433 is constitutionally
unassailable. Granting voting rights to the citizens of the District of
Columbia is a matter of simple justice. I know it is morally right. It
is also long overdue. Let us end this injustice and be true to the
better angels of our nature. I urge all Members to join me in voting
for H.R. 1433.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Gohmert), a member of the Judiciary Committee and the
deputy and ranking member of the Crime Subcommittee.
Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, it is important to look at the words of
the Constitution themselves. It says very clearly, and this is Article
I, section 2. This is what talks about who will comprise the House of
Representatives, who will comprise the Congress. It says ``it shall be
composed of members that come from the several States.'' It is very
clear.
Now, all of the people that testified before the Judiciary Committee
who were supporting this amendment through legislation said, well, they
base that on section 8, which says we can exercise exclusive
legislation over the district. But once you open that door you have
opened Pandora's box, because that same clause, that same paragraph
says, exercise like authority over all places, that should include
things like places where we have forts, magazines, arsenals, dark yards
and other needful buildings. Once you go there, then every military
institution in America could have a representative. Every needful
Federal building in America could have a representative. That is what
happens when you start bending and twisting the Constitution.
Now, these arguments were had when the Constitution was written.
Alexander Hamilton lost. And there is a good position that people
should be able to elect their representative, and that was discussed.
But I would submit to you that Washington, D.C. is also the only city
in the entire country that every Senator and every Member of Congress
has a vested interest in seeing that it works properly, that water
works, sewer works, and no other city in America has that.
In conclusion, let me just say, south of Columbus, Georgia, used to
be an old blacksmith iron work shop with a sign above the door that
said ``All types of bending and twisting done here.'' And I would
humbly submit the Constitution should not have the same sign on the
front of it. The Constitution is clear. Let's don't bend and twist it.
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute because the
speaker from Texas, Mr. Gohmert, a valuable member of Judiciary, a
highly praised judge, and a supporter of gun rights too, incidentally
ignores a decision that just came out of the federal court, just
recently, within weeks, Parker v. Williams, which held that the second
amendment renders the District's gun ban unconstitutional--which I was
sorry to hear, but he probably wasn't--in that ``a well regulated
militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of
the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.''
The court held that D.C. was a State for purposes of the
Constitution's second amendment.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the rest of my time.
The gentlelady from Los Angeles, California, has come upon the floor.
I know she wants to speak on this, and I recognize Maxine Waters from
California for 3 minutes on this subject.
Ms. WATERS. Thank you so very much, Madam Speaker, and Chairman John
Conyers.
A lot of people want to know what difference does it make that
Democrats are now in the majority. This is a fine example. Chairman
Conyers and others have been working on this issue for so very long.
And I rise in support of H.R. 1433, the District of Columbia House
Voting Rights Act of 2007, of which I am a proud cosponsor.
[[Page H2846]]
In a country where basic human and civil rights were only
incrementally given to similarly situated citizens throughout its
history, I applaud my colleagues for their courage and integrity to
consider this measure and support its passage after 200 years of
injustice.
I thank the gentlelady from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) and
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) for their leadership and
tenacity. Ms. Norton has consistently fought for the 16 years since she
was first elected to Congress as my classmate in the 102nd Congress.
Just like securing the right to vote, or securing civil rights, for
that matter, for African Americans, women and other minorities was a
long fight with slow rewards, seeking the franchisement of D.C.
citizens has been equally as difficult.
Just as it was shameful and unconscionable for African Americans and
women to not have a vote until the passage of the 19th amendment, and
of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, it is unconscionable for tax-paying
citizens in America not to have a vote in Congress in the 21st century.
It is even more ironic that D.C. citizens have no vote in Congress
when it operates right in their back yard. To discriminate against tax-
paying citizens for over 200 years is an embarrassment to our democracy
and undermines fundamental constitutional principles.
Nowhere in the United States Constitution is the word ``State''
defined, but some of our colleagues now wish to gerrymander a
definition that would somehow distinguish citizens of D.C. from
citizens of every other voting State.
Furthermore, not only does the guaranty clause, which reads that
``the United States shall guarantee a republican form of government,''
but the fifth amendment equal protection clause, which insures that all
persons of the United States enjoy equal protection of the laws, make
it clear that D.C. citizens should receive voting representation.
Article IV, section 4 of the Constitution guarantees us a republican
form of government. And the Supreme Court has defined a republican form
of government as one constructed on the principle that the superior
power resides in the body of the people. Are D.C. citizens not a part
of the people?
Mr. Chairman, in this new Congress we hope to rid America of all
traces of disenfranchisement, of impediments to voting. And giving D.C.
residents a vote in the Congress is a major part of this goal.
I thank you, Congressman John Conyers, for your leadership.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend
from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), a senior member of the Judiciary
Committee.
(Mr. GOODLATTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1433, the
District of Columbia Voting Rights Act.
There is no doubt that citizens of the District of Columbia do not
have a full voting representation in the House of Representatives.
However, there are ways that these individuals can receive
representation without trampling on the Constitution. Unfortunately,
this bill is not one of them.
The Constitution does not mince words when it says that Members of
Congress may only be elected from the States. Article I, section 2
states that the House of Representatives shall be composed of Members
chosen every second year by the people of the several States.
The Constitution also does not mince words when it distinguishes the
District of Columbia from a State. In describing the powers of the
Congress, Article I, section 8 describes the seat of Federal Government
as a district, not exceeding 10 miles square, as made by cessation of
particular States and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of
government of the United States.
Furthermore, the text of the 23rd amendment to the Constitution
further illustrates that the District was never meant to have the same
rights as States. Specifically, it grants D.C. the power to appoint a
number of electors, a President and Vice President, equal to the whole
number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the
district would be entitled if it were a State.
The plain language of the Constitution is clear, that D.C. is not a
State and that it is not granted the same rights as States. However,
the constitutional problems with this bill do not end here. The bill
would also establish an at-large representative for Utah, which would
allow the citizens of Utah to vote twice, once for their local
representative and another time for an at-large representative. This
would clearly violate the constitutional principle of one man-one vote
by granting Utah citizens disproportionately large voting power.
Finally, the procedure for bringing this bill to the floor is
appalling. Debate has been eliminated on a bill that affects the
relative voting power of citizens in each of our congressional
districts. Ranking Member Smith offered an amendment which would have
provided for an expedited judicial review.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this legislation which is
clearly unconstitutional.
I rise in opposition to H.R. 1433, the District of Columbia house
voting rights act.
There is no doubt that citizens of D.C. do not have a full voting
representative in the house of Representatives. However, there are ways
that these individuals can receive representation without trampling on
the Constitution. Unfortunately, this bill is not one of them.
The Constitution does not mince words when it says that members of
Congress may only be elected from the states. Article I Section 2
states that ``The House of Representatives shall be composed of members
chosen every second year by the people of the several States.'' The
Constitution also does not mince words when it distinguishes the
District of Columbia from a State. In describing the powers of the
Congress, Article I Section 8 describes the seat of Federal Government
as a ``District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cessation
of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat
of government of the United States.''
Furthermore, the text of the 23rd amendment to the Constitution
further illustrates that the district was never meant to have the same
rights as States. Specifically, it grants D.C. the power to appoint ``a
number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole
number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the
District would be entitled if it were a State. . .''
The plain language of the Constitution is clear that D.C. is not a
State and that it is not granted the same rights as States. However,
the Constitutional problems with this bill do not end here. The bill
would also establish an at-large representative for Utah, which would
allow the citizens of Utah to vote twice--once for their local
representative and another time for an at-large representative. This
would clearly violate the Constitutional principle of ``one man, one
vote'' by granting Utah citizens disproportionately large voting power.
Finally, the procedure for bringing this bill to the floor is
appalling. Debate has been eliminated on a bill that affects the
relative voting power of citizens in each of our congressional
districts. Ranking member Smith offered an amendment which would have
provided for an expedited judicial review of the bill after it is
enacted, to determine its constitutionality. It is revealing that the
majority decided to block that amendment which would have settled the
Constitutional concerns about this legislation.
For all these reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose this ill-
crafted legislation.
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I reserve my time.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from California (Mr. Issa), a member of the Judiciary Committee and
also a member of its Constitution Subcommittee.
(Mr. ISSA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, it is an unusual day in which the cosponsor
of a bill, not in just this Congress but in the previous Congress,
comes to oppose the final passage. It is not that I object to the
people of the District of Columbia gaining a vote in this body, just
the opposite. For two Congresses I have worked with Chairman Davis, now
Ranking Member Davis, to achieve that.
It is that, for whatever reason, in this Democratically controlled
Congress, we have lost democracy. In the regular order of the two
committees, amendments were offered, some were passed, some failed. One
that was passed was one of mine. It intended to make clear the Maryland
relationship to the District of Columbia. It was a
[[Page H2847]]
fairly small technical amendment. The Democrat majority, led by Speaker
Pelosi, chose to strip that out of what was brought to the floor, to my
amazement, but not amusement. And then when I offered the same
amendment to the Rules Committee, they voted not to allow it. So that
which was voted in the committee of jurisdiction was stripped out by
the leadership and then refused to be considered in the body of the
whole. That is without any democratic fairness.
I am not here to complain about process. I believed it was an
essential piece of language when this legislation was considered. So
without it, I feel I am compelled not only to vote against it, but to
seek alternate remedies for future legislation.
We cannot, in this body, Madam Speaker, allow the Speaker of the
House or the House majority leader to simply eliminate the tradition of
how we do business in order to reach democratically produced
legislation. So I will be voting against this bill, and it will be a
vote against the kind of heavy-handedness that led to this bill being
less than it could have been.
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, we continue to reserve time.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan), a valued member of the Judiciary
Committee.
Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Madam Speaker, the United States of America is
the greatest Nation in human history. And that is due to a number of
reasons, number of facts, number of truths that make that so. But
certainly, one of those is the document we call the United States
Constitution. And on giving the District of Columbia a voting Member in
Congress, the United States Constitution could not be more clear. And
let me just read what other Members have read: ``Article I, section 2,
the House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every
second year by the people of the several States. No person shall be a
Representative who shall not have attained to the age of 25 years and
have been 7 years a citizen of the United States and who shall not,
when elected, be an inhabitant of that State in which he shall be
chosen. Further, when vacancies happen in the representation from any
State, the executive authority thereof shall issue writs of election to
fill such vacancies.''
State, State, State. Three different times the word State is used.
The District of Columbia is not a State. I can't help that inconvenient
fact, as someone has said earlier. But those are the facts. You don't
have to be a lawyer. You don't have to be a judge. You don't have to
sit on the Supreme Court to understand what the Constitution says.
This bill is unconstitutional, and that is why I oppose it.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Iowa (Mr. King), another valued member of the Judiciary Committee,
and also the ranking member of one of its subcommittees.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and ranking
member, Mr. Smith, for yielding and for his leadership on this issue.
I come to the floor here to stand up for this Constitution. That is
my oath as it is all of our oaths here. We all stand here on the floor
of Congress and take an oath to this Constitution, Madam Speaker. And
the language in this Constitution has been many times stated. It is
utterly clear. But I want to draw a distinction here that has not been
emphasized very much and that is that if you can rationalize that the
District of Columbia can constitutionally be conferred a Member by this
Congress, then you also have to rationalize that same rationale that
two Senators can be conferred upon the District of Columbia as well.
{time} 1315
And I point your attention to, Madam Speaker, Article I, section 2
and the operative language: ``The House of Representatives shall be
composed of Members chosen every second year by,'' and this is the
distinct language, ``by the people of the several States.''
In Article I, section 3, when you incorporate the 17th amendment into
it, reads: ``The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two
Senators from each State,'' just like a Member chosen by the State, but
elected by the people thereof; elected by the people thereof in section
3; chosen by the people of the several States in section 2. They each
reference ``States.'' There is not a distinction. If you can
constitutionally confer a Member of Congress, you can do the same thing
for Senators.
And I would point out also that a couple of bright legal minds that
have weighed in on this, Ken Starr and Viet Dinh, people whom I do
respect, also I believe they made an argument that is taught in law
school: How do you analyze both sides of the argument so you can make
both sides or defend either side?
And I think it is just an utterly weak argument that they made. And
the simple principle was that between 1791 and 1801, that 10-year
period of time, Virginia and Maryland, those residents that existed and
lived in this District that was contemplated by the Framers of the
Constitution were granted temporarily the right to vote in their
respective States until such time as this Federal jurisdiction was
established.
Just because there is consensus agreement among the House, the
Senate, and the President does not constitute a constitutional
principle.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, as chairman of the
Congressional Constitution Caucus and as a Representative of the State
of New Jersey, I come to the floor to strongly oppose this
unconstitutional taking away, diminution, and reducing of voting rights
for citizens of my district in the State of New Jersey.
The sponsors of the bill do this in order to accommodate the equally
unconstitutional creation of voting rights in an area of this country
that is not a State. And it has been pointed out already that there is
a legal and constitutional manner to enfranchise these people of the
District of Columbia.
But in section 4.5 of the bill, the sponsor gives some citizens of
another State, Utah, two votes in Congress for every one vote for my
citizens in the State of New Jersey.
The Founding Fathers of this Nation never intended that one State
would be more equal than another State. The Founding Fathers of this
country never intended that Congress could strip away rights to vote
from my State to give it to another. The Founding Fathers never
intended that Congress would create a situation that one State would be
second class to another State.
I urge my colleagues from New Jersey to vote against this bill.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my colleague
from Texas (Mr. Poe).
Mr. POE. Madam Speaker, I am glad that we are finally discussing the
U.S. Constitution. So much legislation goes through this House from
both sides where the Constitution is never mentioned as to whether it
is constitutional or not.
No question about it: the folks in Washington, D.C. ought to be
represented in the House. But the Constitution does not allow it except
by constitutional amendment. And history is on the side of what I say.
The 23rd amendment to the Constitution that was approved in 1961
gives the District of Columbia and the people here representation or
voting in the Presidential election by giving them three electors. It
took a constitutional amendment to give them that right. The arguments
were made then that are being made now. D.C. was not a State in 1961
any more than it is a State today.
So let us proceed. Let us proceed with a constitutional amendment if
need be and give the folks in Washington, D.C. a representation in this
House of Representatives. But do it the right way. Do it the
constitutional way, not by just some legislation of Congress.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Regula), a senior Member of this body.
(Mr. REGULA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. REGULA. Madam Speaker, I have a little bit different approach to
this. I have been introducing a bill in several sessions which would
provide for retrocession of the city of Washington, D.C. minus the
Federal portion
[[Page H2848]]
to the State of Maryland. This would give the people who reside in
Washington, D.C. a chance to vote on Senators. It would give them a
chance to vote on legislators. It would give the people who live here a
chance to participate in the university system, the highway system,
economic development. A lot of things would accrue to the benefit of
the people if we would have retrocession of the city minus the Federal
portion.
There is precedent for this in the fact that originally we had a
portion of it retrocede to Virginia, and I think retroceding the
balance to Maryland would make a lot of sense for the people. It would
give them what they are seeking, which would be a vote not just for
Congress but for Senators, for the legislators, and it would be a way
in which they could more effectively participate.
Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation. I want to be
clear, however, that I have long been an advocate of voting rights for
the residents of the District of Columbia. Beginning with my service on
the DC Appropriations Subcommittee in 1987, I have been keenly aware of
this unfair situation within our democracy. Virtually every Congress
since then I have introduced legislation that would give the District
of Columbia residents representation in Congress. Voting is a privilege
that our founding fathers intended every American to have, and giving
this right to DC residents is a matter of doing what is right. Yet 200
years have passed since DC residents lost their voting rights and they
continue to express dissatisfaction over their lack of voting
representation in Congress.
Because of this frustrating situation and the numerous failed
attempts to grant DC either statehood or a voting representative, I
have advocated for a simple, sound and proven process to give DC
residents voting rights. This process is known as retrocession or
reunion. Through this process, the District, barring a small Federal
enclave, would be returned to the State of Maryland, which originally
ceded the land in 1790.
Retrocession would be beneficial for both the District and Maryland.
The voting rights issue would be resolved, as DC residents would gain
not only a voting representative in the House of Representatives but
also two in the United States Senate. The residents also would gain new
representation on the State level and enjoy access to Maryland's State
infrastructure, facilities and assistance programs. On a very local
level, Washington, as a city in a state, would regain the local
decision-making authority it has been seeking for so long.
Conversely, by gaining the District's nearly 600,000 residents,
Maryland would gain a seat in the House and extend its influence in
Congress. With the Nation's 2nd highest per capita income, District
residents would enhance Maryland's tax base and help create the 4th
largest regional market in the country.
Canada offers a prime example of how this proposal could work. Its
capital, Ottawa, lies in the province of Ontario and sends
representatives to the provincial parliament in Toronto as well as the
federal parliament as part of the Ontario delegation. Also, in 1790,
Alexandria, Virginia was in a similar position to DC. Alexandria was
included in the area chosen by George Washington to become the District
of Columbia. A portion of the City of Alexandria and all of today's
Arlington County share the distinction of having been originally in
Virginia, ceded to the U.S. Government to form the District of
Columbia, and later retroceded to Virginia by the Federal Government in
1846, when the District was reduced in size to exclude the portion
south of the Potomac River.
I believe this framework is the most logical and constitutionally
sound way to give DC residents the voting rights they deserve.
Additionally, as I mentioned previously, the precedent already exists.
Let's pursue a realistic solution to restore the rights of District
residents and provide them with a better future.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Feeney), a former Speaker of the House in Florida.
(Mr. FEENEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. FEENEY. Madam Speaker, I find almost a surreal debate going on
with my friends on the left side of the House saying to us don't you
like democracy. We have got soldiers fighting for democracy throughout
the world, while we are saying to our friends on the left, don't you
like the Constitution?
The question is are we a pure democracy or a constitutional republic?
The Constitution is made up of powers delegated by the States, and the
States alone, to the Federal Government. The States and the States
alone, according to the language of the Constitution, are represented
in the U.S. House.
If you believe in democracy, use the constitutional amendment
process, use the retrocession process. If you have a quarrel with the
Constitution, it is not because you don't like the position of the
Republicans and the minority in this House. It is because your quarrel
is with the Founding Fathers.
Hamilton tried to get this provision in the Constitution,
representation for D.C. The Founding Fathers considered it and they
rejected it.
So, again, we are for democracy within a constitutional republic
status. We are not an unadulterated democracy. We are a constitutional
republic.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Nevada (Mr. Heller).
Mr. HELLER of Nevada. Madam Speaker, I thank the ranking member for
yielding.
I rise in opposition to this legislation. The matter is a question of
basic fairness, but also serious constitutional concern.
As a former Secretary of State for the State of Nevada, I have spent
years trying to figure out ways to promote voting, and I support the
voting rights of all Americans. I additionally understand the concerns
of Utah for its population that lives abroad outside its borders and
their desire for an extra seat.
But I will tell you until this year, Nevada has had a 20-year grip as
the fastest-growing State in the Nation, and Nevada's population is
about even to Utah's, but Nevada is growing significantly faster than
our neighbor.
I understand the concerns of my Utah colleagues following the 2000
census; but to give Utah an extra seat at the expense of Nevada would,
arguably, slight Nevada.
I know the intent is good, but the means by which we achieve them are
just as important, and I urge a ``no'' vote.
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I am proud to yield 1 minute to the most
patient Member in the House of Representatives, the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Al Green).
Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman for
yielding.
I want to make it conspicuously clear that I love the Constitution.
And I understand that there are constitutional scholars on both sides
of this issue.
There were constitutional scholars on both sides of Dred Scott. There
were constitutional scholars on both sides of Plessy vs. Ferguson.
There were constitutional scholars on both sides of Brown vs. The Board
of Education.
The question is which side are you on? Which side are you on today?
I stand with the half million people, more than a half million
people, in the District of Columbia who do not have full representation
in the United States Congress. Which side are we on today?
I stand with ending 206 years of injustice on people who are citizens
of the United States who live in the District of Columbia. I stand on
the side of ending taxation without representation. I stand with the
chairman and I want to especially say that I stand with the majority
leader, who stood here and made me proud of him today. Just when I
think that the stock of the chairman of this committee and the majority
leader can't go any higher, it goes up.
I stand for government of the people, by the people, and for the
people.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for
time, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I am proud to yield 1 full minute to Rush
Holt of New Jersey.
Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Madam Speaker, the constitutional history of the United States has
been the expansion of the voting franchise. Our history has been to
expand the rights and responsibilities of citizenship.
With respect to the District of Columbia, the Constitution provides
that the Congress shall have the power to exercise exclusive
legislation. It does not say that the price is the loss of the
franchise.
As a youngster who lived here in the District of Columbia, I was told
by some that residents of D.C. were special. My colleague from Texas
used the
[[Page H2849]]
word ``distinctive'' awhile ago, that somehow we were honored to have
Congress govern us even though we did not have representation.
What a strange honor. It is truly paradoxical and ironic that
residents of the seat of government of the greatest democracy in the
world should not themselves have the right of direct representation,
600,000 citizens, citizens without the complete basic rights of
citizens. Giving D.C.'s 600,000 residents direct representation of
Congress is long overdue.
I rise today in support of the District of Columbia House Voting
Rights Act of 2007, and I would like to commend my colleagues Eleanor
Holmes Norton and Tom Davis for their tireless efforts to bring this
important measure to the Floor for a vote.
The United States Constitution, a relatively short and simple
document, has utterly transformed the world in its 200 year history. It
has served as a model for fledgling democracies everywhere, because of
its establishment of a system under which the citizenry grant limited
powers to the government and choose the individuals who will represent
them in that government. The Constitutional history of the United
States has been the expansion of the voting franchise. Our history has
been to expand the rights and responsibilities of citizenship.
As for the District of Columbia, however, the Constitution provides
that Congress shall have the power ``to exercise exclusive legislation
over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may . . . become
the seat of government of the United States.'' It does not say that the
price is disenfranchisement.
The importance of creating a neutral jurisdiction for the seat of the
federal government under the exclusive control of Congress made sense
at the time. As a youngster who lived in the District of Columbia many
decades ago, I was told by some that residents of DC were special,
distinctive as the gentleman, Mr. Smith, that we were honored to have
Congress govern us even though Congress worked without representation
from us. What a strange honor! It is truly paradoxical that the
residents of the seat of government of the greatest democracy in the
world should not, themselves, have the rights to direct representation.
The District of Columbia was created in 1790 and, in 1800, it had a
population of just over 8,000. Today, it is home to about 600,000
citizens--citizens without the complete basic rights of citizens.
If enacted, H.R. 1433 would treat the District of Columbia like a
congressional district for the purposes of allowing direct
representation within the House of Representatives. This measure was
reported out favorably by the House Committee on the Judiciary
Committee by a margin of almost two to one, and subsequently by the
House Committee on Oversight and Government by a margin of 25 to four.
[Giving Washington D.C.'s 600,000 residents direct representation in
Congress is long overdue;] I fully support this measure and I urge my
colleagues to do the same.
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Ohio, Dennis Kucinich, a distinguished Member of this body.
Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.
D.C. residents shoulder the burden of a colossal injustice. They live
within a system of governance that extracts the full range of taxes
paid by all other U.S. citizens without the benefit of voting
representation in the United States Congress.
The history of D.C. is the history of democracy denied. Its citizens
have given the full measure of their allegiance to the United States.
They fought in wars for the United States. They have paid taxes. They
have provided labor, resources, and space to the United States
Government. Yet for 200 years District residents have been bystanders
in the governance of their Nation and city.
``Taxation without representation'' is not just a good slogan. It is
a plight that sparked revolution. We attempt to create democracies
around the globe, but to deny democracy in the shadow of the U.S.
capital, it is now time to end that.
Voting rights, civil rights, human rights are all one. Support this
resolution.
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 1 minute to my
good friend from Virginia, James Moran.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to the
arguments against this bill, and no one has made the argument that this
is not the right thing to do. The opposition is hiding behind the
language of the Constitution. I say ``hide'' because there are any
number of interpretations and any number of conservative constitutional
scholars who have said this is fully constitutional.
But it is the right thing to do because there is no jurisdiction, no
State, no local government that has had more legislation passed in this
body affecting them than the onerous provisions directly affecting the
citizens of the District of Columbia and uniquely affecting them.
Forty-four thousand veterans are in the District of Columbia. Every
D.C. resident pays Federal taxes.
1330
They are solid American citizens and there are more of them than in
the entire state of Wyoming. They deserve voting representation.
Let me say one further thing. I represent the area in Alexandria that
used to be part of the District of Columbia. When that area retroceded
back to Virginia, on the front page of the Alexandria Gazette they
described the freed men and freed women on their knees begging for
citizens of Alexandria not to do this--not to deprive every black
person of all their rights. But the entitled white people of Northern
Virginia voted to deny them their rights because of racism. The history
of this disenfranchisement of D.C. residents is not a pretty one. It
needs to be undone.
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I am proud to yield 1 minute to my friend
the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
(Mrs. MALONEY of New York asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support for
voting rights for residents of the District of Columbia.
I would note, Madam Speaker, that this month is Women's History
Month, and it took women many, many long years to gain the right to
vote. It took a constitutional amendment in 1920 to give women the
right to vote. But today we can vote to give the vote to the residents
of the District of Columbia.
I would note that it was not until 1965 that the landmark Voting
Rights Act was signed into law to outlaw discriminatory practices like
literacy tests and to ensure that all Americans, regardless of race,
had access to the ballot. Today we have the opportunity to take another
historic step in the right direction by ending the disenfranchisement
of hundreds of thousands of tax-paying Americans.
The people of the District of Columbia contribute to our national
economy, they fight in our wars, and it is simply wrong that they not
have representation.
I rise in strong support of voting rights for these residents.
Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1433, the
``District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act,'' introduced by my good
friend and colleague, Representative Eleanor Holmes Norton.
She has been a steadfast champion for her constituents on many
issues, and has worked tirelessly to bring this legislation to the
floor today.
I want to commend her for her commitment to the residents of the
District of Columbia, who for too long have been denied a voice in the
House of Representatives.
We have seen through our own history the great struggles that have
been endured to win the right to vote.
For women, it took a constitutional amendment in 1920 to give us the
right the vote.
It was not until 1965 that the landmark ``Voting Rights Act'' was
signed into law to outlaw discriminatory practices like literacy tests
and to ensure that all Americans, regardless of race, had access to the
ballot box.
Today, we are taking another step in the right direction by ending
the disenfranchisement of hundreds of thousands of tax-paying
Americans.
It is undemocratic that we can determine the taxes that District
residents pay to the Federal Government, but they have not been able to
elect a representative who has a say in what those taxes will be.
The people of the District of Columbia contribute to our national
economy and they fight in wars.
It is simply wrong that their representative in the House does not
have full voting rights.
The House of Representatives is known as ``the people's house'' yet
for the people living in the District of Columbia, their voices have
been silenced for far too long.
It is sadly ironic that the citizens living in the Nation's Capital
do not have full representation in the House.
[[Page H2850]]
With this legislation, we will change history.
I urge my colleagues to support his legislation.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my
time.
Madam Speaker, let me summarize the reasons we should oppose this
legislation. D.C. is not a State, and the Constitution clearly limits
representation in the House to States.
Supporters of this bill claim Congress has the authority to enact
this bill under a broad reading of the so-called ``District clause'' in
Article I, section 8 of the Constitution. However, Article I, section 2
clearly says, ``The House of Representatives shall be composed of
Members chosen every second year by the people of the several States.''
The bill unfairly subjects many citizens to unequal treatment as
well. H.R. 1433 grants Utah an additional Representative who will run
statewide or at large. The at-large provision violates the principles
of one man, one vote. Voters in Utah would be able to vote for two
Representatives, their district Representative and their at-large
Representative, whereas voters in every other State would only be able
to vote for their one district Representative. The result would be that
Utah voters will have disproportionately more voting power than the
voters of every other State, and that, too, is clearly
unconstitutional.
In 2000, the Federal District Court in D.C. itself stated, ``We
conclude from our analysis of the text that the Constitution does not
contemplate that the District may serve as a State for purposes of the
apportionment of congressional representatives.''
Furthermore, Madam Speaker, this unconstitutional approach is
completely unnecessary. Most of the District of Columbia, other than a
few Federal buildings, could simply be returned to the State of
Maryland. That process of retrocession is clearly allowed by the
Constitution. That process could grant representation in the House to
those in Washington by a simple majority vote. D.C. voters could then
be represented by both House and Senate Members, an improvement over
the current legislation.
Madam Speaker, finally, and for many good reasons, the administration
also opposes this legislation.
Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Watson) for the purpose of a unanimous-consent request.
(Ms. WATSON asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. WATSON. Madam Speaker, I just want to say that this is long
overdue.
Madam Speaker, I am elated that this bill is finally reaching the
House floor for a vote--that we might finally be granting a voice in
Congress to half a million patriotic taxpaying Americans. I know that
my colleague, Eleanor Holmes Norton, is elated as well.
Democracy for District residents is long overdue. There are over
500,000 residents living in DC and they pay some of the highest income
taxes in the Nation, but they do not have full representation in
Congress. This is unacceptable. DC residents should have the voice and
voting rights that the other 50 States in this country share.
Voting is fundamental to the Democratic process. It is the one act
that allows the widest participation of the American public in our
political process. Every voter who goes to the polls should be assured
that his or her vote will be counted and the candidates they put in
office will be able to have the voting power to voice their needs in
this House.
Madam Speaker, I am hopeful that when this bill passes, I will soon
be able to call my colleague from the District of Columbia
Congresswoman Holmes Norton and she will be joining me on the floor to
vote and represent the people of Washington, DC to the fullest.
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished
former member of the Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from Maryland
(Mr. Van Hollen).
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank the chairman.
Madam Speaker, this bill is about justice, it is about fairness and
about democracy. What a terrible message we send when the people in the
capital of the world's greatest democracy do not have a vote in the
people's House.
I have the privilege of representing the district right next to
Washington, D.C., and it is simply wrong that when you cross the border
from Washington, D.C., into my district, you go from a district where
you have no voting representation in Congress to one where you do.
We need to make sure that all the people in this country share the
right to a vote in the people's House. I urge adoption of this bill.
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the Speaker of the House.
Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and his
leadership in bringing this very important legislation to the floor.
This is a happy day indeed. It is an historic day. It is a day when
the people of the District of Columbia will finally have their voices
heard and represented.
This is a personal joy for me as well, because when I was born all
those many years ago, my father served in the Congress, and he became
the Chair of the District of Columbia Appropriations Subcommittee. As
such, that was a time when there was no Mayor, no home rule, no
anything; that committee practically ran the District of Columbia. My
father was a strong advocate for home rule for the District, and, of
course, we had hoped eventually, and still do, statehood.
It took a long time, but at last today we will get a vote once again
for Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton. She has really been a champion
for the District. Even without the full vote, her impact is felt here,
but it is the right thing to do for her to have the vote.
Congressman Davis, as Chairman Davis and now as ranking member, has
always been a strong advocate for this, as has Henry Waxman, the Chair
of the Government Reform Committee, and you, Mr. Chairman, from the
standpoint of the Judiciary Committee.
How impressive it was to see the Iraqi vets, these young people,
coming back from the Iraq war, and those serving in Afghanistan, where
they were willing to make any sacrifice for our country. Their courage
and patriotism is honored by all of us. They came and pled to us for
the District of Columbia to have the vote. They live here, they went to
war from here, they wanted to come home to the fullness of democracy
for the District of Columbia.
Today's vote affirms an enduring principle of our democracy, the
right to be heard and represented. They fought for that in Iraq. They
should have it here in the District.
For more than 200 years, the people of the District of Columbia have
been denied full representation. This carefully crafted, bipartisan
legislation corrects a serious flaw in our democracy. America is at its
best honoring the cause of freedom and justice when all voices are
fully represented.
The effort to politicize the issue of fundamental fairness
disrespects the ideals of this Nation and the people of the District of
Columbia. We must honor our democracy. House Democrats will not rest
until full representation in the House is granted to the District of
Columbia.
This is an important day on which I congratulate Congresswoman
Eleanor Holmes Norton and the people of the District of Columbia for
having this right come due.
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Madam Speaker, I will insert in the Record under yesterday's date,
March 21, a CRS report handed to me by Eleanor Holmes Norton that
validates the fact that the one man, one vote principle is not violated
by the Utah creation of an at-large district.
Madam Speaker, we have had a lot of predictions from Members of the
Congress who may be on the Supreme Court someday. They predicted
unconstitutionality and constitutionality. Let's leave it up to the
Court. But, remember, those challenging on the basis of
unconstitutionality have the burden.
I close with this observation: The three recommendations we have had,
a constitutional amendment; retrocession, giving D.C. back to Maryland;
or statehood, are not going to work.
I urge support for this measure before us today.
CRS Report for Congress: Congressional Redistricting: The
Constitutionality of Creating an At-Large District
(L. Paige Whitaker, Legislative Attorney)
Summary
Among other provisions, H.R. 1433 (110th Cong.), the
District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2007, would
expand the U.S.
[[Page H2851]]
House of Representatives by two Members to a total of 437
Members. The first of these two new seats would be allocated
to create a voting Member representing the District of
Columbia, and the second seat would be assigned in accordance
with 2000 census data and existing federal law, resulting in
the addition of a fourth congressional seat in the state of
Utah, which would be a temporary at-large district. This
report is limited to discussing only the constitutionality of
the creation of an at-large congressional district. While it
is not without doubt, based on the authority granted to
Congress under the Constitution to regulate congressional
elections and relevant Supreme Court precedent, it appears
that federal law establishing a temporary at-large
congressional district would likely be upheld as
constitutional.
H.R. 1433 (110th Cong.), the District of Columbia House Voting Rights
Act of 2007
Among other provisions, H.R. 1433 (110th Cong.), the
District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2007, would
expand the U.S. House of Representatives by two Members to a
total of 437 Members. It specifies that the first of these
two new seats would be allocated to create a voting Member
representing the District of Columbia, and that the second
seat would be assigned in accordance with 2000 census data
and existing federal law, which would currently result in the
addition of a fourth congressional seat in the state of Utah.
This report is limited to considering only the issue of
the constitutionality of the creation of an at-large
congressional district.
H.R. 1433 (110th Cong.) was introduced on March 9, 2007,
and supersedes H.R. 328, which was introduced earlier in the
110th Congress. On March 13, the House Government Oversight
and Reform Committee reported H.R. 1433, by a vote of 24-5,
and on March 15, the House Judiciary Committee reported the
bill by a vote of 21-13.
Brief Constitutional Analysis
The U.S. Constitution provides the states with primary
authority over congressional elections, but grants Congress
the final authority over most aspects of such elections. This
congressional power is at its most broad in the case of House
elections, which have historically been decided by a system
of popular voting. Article I, Sec. 4, cl. 1 provides that:
The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for
Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each
State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any
time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the
Places of chusing Senators.
The Supreme Court and lower courts have interpreted this
language to mean that Congress has extensive power to
regulate most elements of congressional elections, including
a broad authority to protect the integrity of those
elections.
The Constitution does not specify how Members of the House
are to be elected once they are apportioned to a state.
Originally, most states having more than one Representative
divided their territory into geographic districts, permitting
only one Member of Congress to be elected from each district.
Other states, however, allowed House candidates to run at-
large or from multi-member districts or from some combination
of the two. In those states employing single-member
districts, however, the problem of gerrymandering, the
practice of drawing district lines in order to maximize
political party advantage, quickly arose.
Accordingly, Congress began establishing standards for
House districts. Congress first passed federal redistricting
standards in 1842, when it added a requirement to the
apportionment act of that year that Representatives ``should
be elected by districts composed of contiguous territory
equal in number to the number of Representatives to which
each said state shall be entitled, no one district electing
more than one Representative.'' (5 Stat. 491.) The
Apportionment Act of 1872 added another requirement to those
first set out in 1842, stating that districts should contain
``as nearly as practicable an equal number of inhabitants.''
(17 Stat. 492.) A further requirement of ``compact
territory'' was added when the Apportionment Act of 1901 was
adopted stating that districts must be made up of
``contiguous and compact territory and containing as nearly
as practicable an equal number of inhabitants.'' (26 Stat.
736.) After 1929, there were no congressionally imposed
standards governing congressional redistricting; in 1941,
however, Congress enacted a law providing for various
redistricting contingencies if states failed to redistrict
after a census--including at-large representation. (55
Stat 761.) In 1967, Congress reimposed the requirement
that Representatives must run from single-member
districts, rather than running at-large. (81 Stat. 581.)
Both the 1941 and 1967 laws are still in effect, codified
at 2 U.S.C.Sec. Sec. 2a and 2c. In Branch v. Smith, the
Supreme Court considered the operation and inherent tension
between these two provisions. It does not appear, however,
that the question of congressional authority was in serious
dispute in this litigation. Rather, the Court noted in
passing that the current statutory scheme governing
apportionment of the House of Representatives was enacted in
1929 pursuant to congressional authority under the ``Times,
Places and Manner'' provision of the Constitution.
Consequently, it seems likely that Congress has broad
authority, within specified constitutional parameters, to
establish how Members' districts will be established,
including the creation of at-large districts.
It might be suggested that creating an at-large
congressional district in a state could violate the ``one
person, one vote'' standard established by the Supreme Court
in Wesberry v. Sanders. In Wesberry, the Supreme Court first
applied the one person, one vote standard in the context of
evaluating the constitutionality of a Georgia congressional
redistricting statute that created a district with two to
three times as many residents as the state's other nine
districts. In striking down the statute, the Court held that
Article I, section 2, clause 1, providing that
Representatives be chosen ``by the People of the several
States'' and be ``apportioned among the several States . . .
according to their respective Numbers,'' requires that ``as
nearly as is practicable, one man's vote in a congressional
is to be worth as much as another's.''
While it is not beyond dispute, it does not appear that the
creation of an at-large district under the circumstances
outlined in H.R. 1433 would be interpreted to create a
conflict with the ``one person, one vote'' standard. Under
H.R. 1433, each Utah voter would have the opportunity to vote
both for a candidate to represent his or her congressional
district as well as for a candidate to represent the state
at-large. Each person's vote for an at-large candidate
would be of equal worth. Further, each person's vote for
an at-large candidate would not affect the value of his or
her vote for a candidate representing a congressional
district. Accordingly, all Utah residents' votes would
have equal value, thereby arguably comporting with the one
person, one vote principle.
Based on the authority granted to Congress under the
Constitution to regulate congressional elections and relevant
Supreme Court precedent, it appears that a federal law
establishing a temporary at-large congressional district
would likely be upheld as constitutional.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman)
and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) each will control 10
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker, I yield my time to be managed by the
gentlelady from the District of Columbia, soon to be, her voters
willing, the actual Representative of the District of Columbia in every
way possible.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from the District of
Columbia (Ms. Norton) will control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia.
Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding me
his time.
Madam Speaker, this bill is covered with the full handprints of
scores of Members, beginning on the other side of the aisle with
Congressman Tom Davis, who planted and tirelessly cultivated the seed;
and Utah Members Cannon and Bishop, joined by Mr. Matheson, the State's
only Democratic Member.
However, it was leadership that got us to this historic day,
especially Speaker Pelosi's personal insistence, Majority Leader
Hoyer's outspoken energy, Chairman Conyers' decades of persistence and
Chairman Waxman's indispensable guidance.
I am inspired daily by the citizens of this city, personified by
Emory Kosh, a staff assistant in my office here in the House whose
second child was born while he was serving in Iraq. Emory's military
service follows in the tradition of D.C. residents, who first fought in
the Revolutionary War to establish ``the Republic for which we stand,''
have fought and died for their country in every war since, and, like
other Americans, have always been obliged to pay Federal income taxes,
today ranking second among the 50 States and the District of Columbia
in taxes paid to support the Government of the United States. Today, I
come forward in their name.
Our forefathers in this city were the three Virginians who signed the
Constitution and the three signers from Maryland. Yet some seriously
argue that the Virginians, the Marylanders and the other Framers fresh
from the Revolutionary War, waged specifically to obtain
representation, contributed land where thousands of their own residents
resided, some of them veterans of the Revolutionary War, and then
signed away their rights in the new Constitution.
However you vote on the District's voting rights, do not slander the
Framers. For two centuries, the fault has been right here in the
Congress, not the flawed vision of the Framers.
[[Page H2852]]
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1345
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).
(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PENCE. Madam Speaker, I come to the House today to express my
support for the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2007.
I believe after much consideration that this legislation is a
constitutional remedy to a historic wrong. Now, while many have focused
on the political consequences of such a move, I believe the only
question for a Member of Congress on such matters is this: What does
justice demand and what does the Constitution permit this Congress to
do about it?
The fact that more than half a million Americans live in the District
of Columbia and are denied a single voting representative in Congress
is clearly a historic wrong, and justice demands that it be addressed.
At the time of the adoption of our present system of government, the
Federal city did not exist apart from a reference in the Constitution.
And when the District of Columbia opened for business in 1801, only a
few thousand residents lived within her boundaries. Among our Founders,
only Alexander Hamilton would foresee the bustling metropolis that the
District of Columbia would become, and he himself was an advocate of
voting representation.
The demands of history in favor of representation for the Americans
living in Washington, D.C. are compelling. In establishing the
Republic, the single overarching principle of the American founding was
that laws should be based on the consent of the governed. The first
generation of Americans threw tea in Boston Harbor simply because they
were denied a voting representative in the British Parliament. Given
their fealty to representative democracy, it is inconceivable to me
that our Founders would have been willing to accept the denial of
representation to so great a throng of Americans in perpetuity.
But the demands of justice are not enough for Congress to act. As
many of my colleagues have eloquently stated, under the principles of
limited government, a republic may only take that action which is
expressly authorized in its written constitution. In this regard, I
believe that H.R. 1433 is constitutional. And I am not alone in this
view.
In support of this legislation, Judge Kenneth Starr, former
independent counsel and U.S. Solicitor General observed: ``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.''
Now, opponents of D.C. voting rights understandably cite the plain
language of Article I of the Constitution that the House of
Representatives be comprised of representatives elected ``by the people
of the several States.'' Now if this were the only reference to the
powers associated with the Federal city, it would be persuasive, but it
is not. Article I, section 8, clause 17 provides that ``Congress shall
have power to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever''
over the District of Columbia.
In 1984, it would be Justice Scalia who would observe that the seat
of government clause gives the Congress ``extraordinary and plenary
power'' over our Nation's capital.
And Congress has used this power to remedy the rights of Americans in
the District of Columbia in the past. In 1949, the Supreme Court upheld
legislation that extended access to the Federal courts to citizens of
the district even though Article III expressly limited jurisdiction of
those courts to citizens of States. As Judge Starr observed: ``The
logic of this case applies here,'' and I agree.
But one caveat, Madam Speaker. None of this argues for the District
of Columbia ever to be granted a right to elect Members to the Senate.
From the inception of our Nation, this House of Representatives was an
extension of the people. The Senate, from the inception of our Nation,
was an extension of the States. If the people of the District of
Columbia would like two seats in the United States Senate, under the
Constitution, they will have to become a State.
You know, the Old Book tells us what is required: do justice, love
kindness, and walk humbly with your God. I believe that justice demands
that we right this historic wrong. The American people should have
representation in the people's House. I believe that kindness demands
that we do the right thing for all Americans regardless of race or
political creed, and I believe that humility demands that we do so in a
manner consistent with our Constitution.
The D.C. House Voting Rights Act meets this test, and I am honored to
have the opportunity to continue to play some small role in leading our
constitutional Republic ever closer to a more perfect Union.
I commend the gentleman from Virginia and my colleague, the delegate
from the District of Columbia, for their yeoman's work on this
legislation.
Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
chairman of the Oversight Committee without whose leadership we could
not have come to this day, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).
(Mr. WAXMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding to me.
Today, we are considering a bill that will bring democracy to the
District of Columbia. This bill will grant the District of Columbia a
full vote in the House of Representatives. They have been denied full
representation in Congress for over 200 years, and this will help right
this long-standing injustice.
But I want to use my time to point out that there have been two
champions of this legislation who deserve recognition. One is
Congresswoman Norton who has been working tirelessly on behalf of her
constituents to forge a compromise that has bipartisan support; and the
second is the ranking member of the Oversight and Government Reform
Committee, and its former Chair, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom
Davis).
Last year as chairman of our committee, he led the charge for voting
rights for the District. It was his inspiration that brought this
compromise to the point now where I expect this bill will pass the
House of Representatives and go on its way to the other body. This is a
bill that is long overdue. I urge all of my colleagues to vote for this
bill.
H.R. 1433, the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2007,
will grant the District of Columbia a full vote in the House of
Representatives.
District of Columbia residents have been denied full representation
in Congress for over 200 years. District residents pay billions of
dollars in federal taxes yet get no vote in Congress. This bill will
help right this longstanding injustice.
There have been two champions of this legislation who deserve
recognition. One is Congresswoman Norton, who has worked tirelessly on
behalf of her constituents to forge a compromise that has bipartisan
support. The second is the Ranking Minority Member of the Oversight and
Government Reform Committee, Representative Davis. Last year, as
Chairman of the Committee, he led the charge for voting rights for the
District.
The District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act includes a number of
important provisions.
This bill will increase the size of the House by two seats. One of
those seats will go to the District of Columbia and the other seat will
go Utah, the next state in line to get a congressional seat. The bill
prevents partisan gerrymandering by creating the new seat for Utah as
an at-large seat and by ensuring that Utah does not redistrict its
other congressional seats until apportionment is conducted following
the 2010 census.
H.R. 1433 also contains a nonseverability clause providing that if a
court holds one section of this bill invalid or unenforceable, all
other sections will be invalid or unenforceable. This is an important
safeguard because it means that no section of this legislation can have
legal effect unless the entire bill has legal effect. Under this
legislation, Utah cannot be granted a seat in the House without the
District also being granted a seat or vice versa.
H.R. 1433 is a step in the right direction toward providing the
residents of the District fair representation in Congress. I urge all
of my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman
from
[[Page H2853]]
Georgia (Mr. Price) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.
(Mr. PRICE of Georgia asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank the ranking member and appreciate his
indulgence.
I strongly oppose the underlying bill, as I believe it to be
unconstitutional.
The House of Representatives stands on the verge of voting on a
flatly unconstitutional, historically egregious bill, the District of
Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2007. This bill would grant the
District of Columbia a full voting seat in the House of Representatives
by circumventing the Constitution. While I agree that it is an
injustice that any United States citizens not have voting
representation in Congress, the contorted logic some have used to
justify this bill is quite troubling.
In supporting this proposal, Kenneth Starr wrote, ``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.'' While
this may be true, the fact remains that the Constitution exclusively
affords House representation to the states. Just because the District
of Columbia was denied a seat in the People's House does not mean that
Congress can ignore the Constitution.
Advocates of the DC Voting bill are discounting as unpersuasive the
``plain language'' of Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution, which
states, ``The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members
chosen every second Year by the People of the several states.'' As if
that weren't enough, the next sentence declares, ``No Person shall be a
Representative who shall not . . . when elected, be an Inhabitant of
that State in which he shall be chosen.''
It is indisputable that House representation is constitutionally
limited to the states. In fact, the Bush administration recently
declared the bill unconstitutional, citing 12 provisions in the
Constitution that expressly link congressional representation to
statehood. Certainly, no one is claiming that the District of Columbia
is one of the 50 states.
Sadly, constitutionality is not a concern of proponents of this
legislation. The central argument from supporters of this bill is
fairness. They argue that Members of Congress have a moral
responsibility to right this wrong by any means. The Founding Fathers
would be aghast at this brazen disregard for the Constitution in
pursuit of a quick fix.
Supporters of this feel-good legislation frequently cite the
``District Clause'' of the Constitution as justification, which reads,
``Congress shall have power . . . to exercise exclusive Legislation in
all Cases whatsoever, over such District.'' It is correct that Congress
has the power to govern the District of Columbia, but this does not
mean that the residents of the District of Columbia have the right to a
seat in Congress, giving them the power to legislate over the 50
states.
The District Clause is found in section 8 of article I, the same
section that gives Congress the power to ``establish Post Offices'' and
to ``make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval
forces.'' Surely no one would propose granting Fort Gordon a seat in
the House, but the promotion of this would follow the same logic.
To be clear: I support representation for the residents of the
District of Columbia but not under this bill's approach. It is truly
unjust that these tax-paying citizens are denied the right to have
their voice heard in the people's House. But Congress cannot create
voting rights for D.C. residents by simply ignoring or contorting the
Constitution because it is our will. There are two proper,
constitutionally just courses of action to remedy this unfairness.
First, the Founders gave Congress and the people the authority to
amend the Constitution. This course would provide for a 51st state of
the District of Columbia. But as the constitutional amendment process
can be protracted and complicated, I support the second course--
retroceding the non-federal portion of Washington, D.C., to the State
of Maryland. Following this plan, most of the residents would have full
representation in the House and Senate, as residents of Maryland. This
is a commonsense proposal with historic precedent. In 1846, the land
west of the Potomac was ceded back to the Commonwealth of Virginia, and
these people now enjoy full congressional representation.
There is a great responsibility in supporting the republican form of
government that our Founders created. And where injustices lie in the
Constitution, Congress is right to try to correct them. But the
greatest respect is owed to our Founders and our Nation as the longest
surviving democracy in history. There is a reason for that and it has
much to do with respecting the genius of our founding document. We must
not ignore the principles of the constitutional republic our Founders
laid out.
It is fundamentally antithetical to pursue representative fairness
while disregarding the Constitution. I am hopeful that supporters of
this bill will see the great fault in their logic, and resolve the
injustice of the residents of the District of Columbia not having a
voting representative in Congress properly within the bounds of the
Constitution.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my
time.
Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to
the Chair of the subcommittee with jurisdiction over the District of
Columbia, 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. Madam Speaker, first of all, let me thank the
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia for yielding me this time. I
also want to commend the chairman of oversight, the Honorable Henry
Waxman, and the ranking member, Tom Davis, for their leadership on this
tremendous legislation. But I also want to add accolades for the
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia who has put her heart, mind
and soul into this legislation; and without her leadership, we
obviously would not be here this afternoon.
I have heard many people talk from both sides. I have heard
individuals say that the Constitution denies the opportunity, and I am
thinking of the Constitution as a living document. I don't want to keep
the Constitution where it might have been. Representative Al Green made
the most eloquent statement a few moments ago when he suggested there
are always individuals on different sides of the Constitution. You can
be on the right side, or you can be on the wrong side. You can be on
the old side, or you can be on the new side; and the side that we are
on this afternoon is the side that gives the residents of the District
of Columbia the opportunity to help make more perfect this Union that
we are a part of.
I stand firmly in support of this legislation. Again, I commend my
colleagues on Oversight and Government Reform and urge all of the
Members to vote in favor of giving the District of Columbia residents
the right to vote.
Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1433, the ``District of
Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2007.'' I want to extend a thank
you to Representatives Tom Davis and Henry Waxman, and especially to
Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton for their hard work and dedication in
introducing and moving this legislation forward to provide the District
of Columbia the right to vote with full representation in the House of
Representatives.
The legislation before us today will give voting representation to
over 500,000 District's residents and increase the size of the House
from 435 to 437 voting members. The right to vote is the most basic act
of citizenship. Voting representation for District residents who pay
Federal taxes, defend our country during war, and contribute to the
economic viability of other states, should not be disfranchised because
they chose to live in the District of Columbia.
The Constitution, ratified in 1789, provided for the creation and
government of a permanent home for the national government. Article I,
Section 8, Clause 17, called for the creation of a Federal district to
serve as the permanent seat of the national government and granted
Congress the power, ``to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases
whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may,
by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become
the seat of government of the United States. . . .'' The Constitution
grants Congress plenary power to govern the District of Columbia's
affairs. This includes granting voting representation in the House of
Representatives for the District of Columbia.
On March 13, 2007, H.R. 1433 was passed by a decisive vote of 24 yeas
to 5 nays in the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and
reflects bipartisan support for this legislation.
Madam Speaker, Congress is attempting to correct a longstanding
inequity for residents in the Nation's Capital--taxation without
representation. We in this body must up hold the Constitution by not
denying a large mass of people their fundamental right to voting
representation. Congress has the power to correct the wrongs of the
past for District residents and it lies in our power to grant the
people of DC the right to voting representation.
Madam Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to support this legislation.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance
of my time.
(Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
[[Page H2854]]
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Madam Speaker, it is often said that if
opportunity doesn't knock, build a door. With this bill, we are doing
just that.
Using the materials at hand today, we can open a portal to full
democratic participation that for too long has remained locked. The
circumstances are right, the stars are aligned, and the proposal is
sound.
Four years ago, we saw a confluence of events that set the stage for
the compromise we have before us today. Two injustices met to create
this opportunity to correct both. On the one hand, a long-ignored
historical anomaly denies the citizens of the District of Columbia
voting representation in the House of Representatives. On the other
hand, a more recent problem with the census denies the citizens of Utah
the additional House vote that a true count would have yielded.
As it happens, one jurisdiction is predominantly Democratic, the
other predominantly Republican. The circumstances opened the way to a
politically neutral solution to both problems.
Throughout our Nation's history, it has been just this kind of win-
win compromise that, however rooted in the fleeting circumstances of
the day, provide enduring solutions to seemingly intractable problems.
Each of us swears to uphold the Constitution, its letter and spirit.
That living document is at its heart the most fundamental right of
citizens in a democracy. All the citizens. So we rely on the plenary
power found in the District clause to restore the full right of
citizenship to our disenfranchised countrymen and women.
After researching every possible avenue to right these wrongs and
give the citizens of the District of Columbia and Utah, the next State
that is eligible for a vote under the formula, the representation to
which they are entitled, we concluded the approach before us today is
both constitutionally sound and politically viable.
The former is our sworn duty. The latter is a practical imperative.
In 4 years, I have found no evidence that any Member of this body
seriously plans to attempt retrocession or campaign for a
constitutional amendment. There is a good reason for that: they are
politically not viable. Most Members, including me, don't waste their
time tilting at windmills.
By now, every Member is aware of the constitutional arguments. I ask
that you think carefully about what you hear today. Every first-year
law student in this country learns that you can't just read the
Constitution once over literally to figure out what it means. But that
is what the other side's arguments are. That is where it stops, and
that is where it starts.
Those opposing this bill ignore 200 years of case law and clear
instruction from the Court that this is a congressional matter and
requires a congressional solution. Under their literal reading of the
Constitution, District residents would have no right to a jury trial
under the sixth amendment because you have to be a State to have that
right.
D.C. residents would have no right to sue people from outside D.C. in
the Federal courts; only people from States have that right under
Article III, section 2.
The full faith and credit clause would not apply to D.C. because that
only applies to States under a literal reading of the Constitution.
And the Federal Government would not be allowed to impose Federal
taxes on the District. The Constitution says direct taxes shall be
apportioned among the several States. Article I, section 2, clause 3.
But in each of these cases, the Supreme Court has held that Congress
can consider the District a State for purposes of applying these
fundamental provisions. If Congress has the authority to do so
regarding these lesser rights and duty, there should be no question we
have the same authority to protect the most sacred right of every
American: to live and participate in a representative Republic.
It should also be pointed out that Congress granted voting
representation in 1790 when it accepted the land that would become the
Federal city. It then removed those rights, by statute, 10 years later.
Those facts are undisputed. No amendment to the Constitution was
considered necessary then. And those opposing the bill today will not
explain, only assert, the claimed need for a constitutional amendment
to reverse a decision that was made through enactment of a statute.
This problem should be solved. A lot of people today will talk about
the Framers and tell us that the Framers intended for the Federal city
to have no direct representation.
Do you really believe that if the capital had stayed in New York, the
city would have been disenfranchised? Do you believe that if the
capital had stayed in Philadelphia, the city would have been
disenfranchised? Of course not, and neither should the people of
Washington, D.C.
What we know is men and women who fought and died to create this
country were willing to die for people who might disagree with them
politically. D.C. residents are paying Federal taxes. They are fighting
and dying in the Middle East to bring democracy to that part of the
world.
This is no mere legal or political science exercise. It's a crisis.
Your fellow Americans are being denied the full rights and benefits of
representative government. We have before us this unique moment in our
history, the opportunity to fulfill the promise of the Constitution and
make our democracy whole again.
{time} 1400
I hope we hear opportunity knocking, and I hope we hear the faint,
but unmistakable whisper of conscience and of history, urging us all to
seize the moment with courage and humility.
[From the Washington Post, Mar. 14, 2007]
Rights and Wrong
Historic legislation giving the people of the District a
vote in their national government is being debated in the
House of Representatives. Prospects for its passage have
never been better. The Democrats who control the House have
kept a promise to move the bill forward, but the
disenfranchisement of American citizens shouldn't be about
partisan politics. It should be about what is right and
wrong.
Indeed, the legislation working its way through the House
sprang from he sense of injustice of a Republican House
member from suburban Virginia. Rep. Thomas M. Davis III
believes it is grotesque that D.C. residents are denied
congressional representation. he came up with an ingenious
way to get politics out of the equation. Two seats would be
added to Congress--one for the mostly Democratic District and
the other for heavily Republican Utah. The bill is on a fast
track thanks to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and
Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.). The House Oversight
and Government Reform Committee approved the measure
yesterday, with every Democrat and six Republicans voting for
it. The Judiciary Committee now takes it up, and a battle is
expected.
It's hard to make a case for depriving people of a voice in
Congress when they pay federal taxes, serve on federal juries
and send family members off to war. It's also pretty
embarrassing that the Untied States, while preaching
democracy to the rest of the world, remains the only
democratic country where people in the capital city are
without representation. So opponents of D.C. voting rights
have latched onto the only argument they can make with a
straight face--that the bill is unconstitutional.
Former judges and constitutional scholars such as Kenneth
Starr, Patricia Wald and Viet Dinh, not to mention the
American Bar Association, believe the bill is constitutional.
They argue that Congress has repeatedly treated the District
as if it were a state and that this treatment has been
upheld. For his part, Mr. Davis has delved into history to
make a compelling argument that the lack of a vote was never
the aim of the Founding Fathers but rather an ``undemocratic
accident.''
We concede that serious people hold the contrary view. No
court has ever weighed in on the D.C. Voting Rights Act, so
the constitutional question is open. That, though, is an
issue for the courts to decide, in the event of a legal
challenge. It should not be an excuse for Congress to
continue to deny a basic right to more than half a million
people.
____
[From the Washington Times, Mar. 22, 2007]
D.C. Due Voting Rights
(By Jack Kemp)
How's this for irony: Headlines recently proclaimed that
the White House was opposed to giving the vote to the more
than 600,000 residents of our nation's capital, who,
incidentally, are paying federal income taxes to send members
of their families to Iraq and Afghanistan so as to guarantee
the right to vote for the residents of those nations'
capitals.
Even as the Judiciary Committee of the House of
Representatives was passing the bill, cosponsored by Reps.
Eleanor Holmes Norton, D-D.C., and Tom Davis, R-Va., a
spokesman for President Bush was saying the bill is
unconstitutional without showing a modicum of sympathy or
even a modest understanding of this irony.
[[Page H2855]]
The White House spokesman is putting the president in the
position of outspoken opposition to expanding the democratic
ideal here in the nation's capital, while simultaneously the
White House argues the president has the constitutional
authority to defend freedom and extend democratic rights to
the people of Baghdad and Kabul.
I wrote last May: ``Throughout our nation's history,
District of Columbia citizens have given the full measure of
their allegiance to the United States. They have fought in
and died in every war in which the United States was engaged,
they have paid billions in taxes, and they have provided
labor and resources to the U.S. economy and government. Yet
for 200 years, District residents have been bystanders in the
governance of their nation.''
With regard to the constitutional arguments, one of the
leading conservative lights in the House of Representatives,
Mike Pence of Indiana, recently wrote, ``Opponents of D.C.
voting understandably cite the plain language of Article I
that the House of Representatives be comprised of
representatives elected by `the people of the several
states.' If this were the only reference to the powers
associated with the federal city, it would be most
persuasive, but it is not. Article I, Section 8, Cl. 17
provides, `The Congress shall have power . . . to exercise
exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever' over the
District of Columbia.''
Pence courageously and wisely voted yes against White House
wishes and, sadly, those of the GOP leadership.
In 1984, Justice Antonin Scalia observed that the Seat of
Government Clause of the Constitution gives Congress
``extraordinary and plenary'' power over our nation's
capital. Scalia added that this provision of the Constitution
``enables Congress to do many things in the District of
Columbia which it has no authority to do in the 50 states . .
. There has never been any rule of law that Congress must
treat people in the District of Columbia exactly the same as
people are treated in various states.'' United States v.
Cohen, 733 F.2d 128, 140 (D.C. Cir. 1984).
Chief Justice John Marshall acknowledged in the early 19th
century that ``It is extraordinary that the courts of the
United States, which are open to aliens, and to the citizens
of every state in the union, should be closed upon (district
citizens).'' But, he explained, ``This is a subject for
legislative, not for judicial consideration.''
Marshall thereby laid out the blueprint by which Congress,
rather than the courts, could treat the District as a state
under the Constitution for the purposes of enfranchisement.
Neither I, nor Tom Davis nor Mike Pence, is arguing for the
District of Columbia to become a state. Indeed, from the
inception of our nation the founders believed the House of
Representatives was the House of the people. I believe
passionately that the architects of the American Constitution
left us the tools to ensure that all American people
should have a voice and vote in the ``people's house.''
I'm troubled by people in the White House who show
compassion for the people of Baghdad and Kabul, as they
should, but can't find it in their hearts to show anything
but indifference to the cries for justice in the nation's
capital.
What these presidential advisers are doing is rigidly
interpreting the Constitution in such a way as to make the
Party of Lincoln into a party that condemns the people of our
nation's capital, including four of my 17 grandchildren, from
ever participating in the great issues of the day as debated
and decided in the House of Representatives.
Indeed, this is taxation without representation.
Republicans have historically supported civil, human and
voting rights, including the passage of the 13th, 14th and
15th Amendments. We have a great history of bipartisan
support for civil rights, but it was our presidential
candidate in 1964 who refused to take a stand for civil and
social justice for African-Americans.
My question is, does this president want to continue the
legacy of Lincoln, Grant and Eisenhower, or that of Barry
Goldwater in 1964?
____
[From the Washington Post, Feb. 7, 2007]
More Than Words
National Democratic party leaders are on record with their
unequivocal endorsement of the District's bid for full voting
rights in the House of Representatives. Support is always
welcome, but what's needed is action. It's time for the
Democrats who control Congress to act on legislation to end
the disenfranchisement of citizens living in the nation's
capital.
The Democratic National Committee voted last weekend to
support the measure, promising a grass-roots lobbying
campaign. It's a welcome boost for a bill that has languished
too long. Sponsored by Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-VA.) and
the District's nonvoting delegate, Eleanor Holmes Norton (D),
the measure would add two seats to the House--one for the
heavily Democratic District and the other for largely
Republican Utah. The bill enjoyed widespread bipartisan
support in the past Congress but was never scheduled for a
floor vote, to what should be the everlasting embarrassment
of the Republican leadership.
Democrats are in a position to push the bill for approval,
but internal party squabbling has slowed its movement. Some
Democrats balked at doing anything for Utah until they were
convinced that the District seat wouldn't have a chance
unless balanced against Utah, which probably would get an
extra seat anyway after the next census reapportionment. In
recent days, Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) has raised the
concern that the bill would give Utah an extra electoral
college vote in the 2008 presidential election and could hurt
Democrats in a close race. The question is whether Democrats
will allow that highly remote and partisan concern to stand
in the way of their claimed support for fair representation
for District residents.
Party insiders are confident that the disagreements will be
ironed out, and they stress that, unlike the Republican
leadership, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and
Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) are genuinely
committed to voting rights for the District. We have no
reason to doubt that. But the strength of the bill crafted by
Mr. Davis and Ms. Norton is that it takes into account the
self-interest of both parties while weighing the needs of the
people of the District and Utah. Tinkering with that formula
could doom the bill, and no matter how good the intentions of
lawmakers, the District deserves results.
____
[From the Virginian-Pilot, Mar. 21, 2007]
Sensible Compromise on D.C. Voting
``Taxation without representation'' has been a bedrock
excuse for American political dissent since Boston Tea Party
days.
Which brings us to the perennial crack in the teacup--the
600,000 residents of the District of Columbia, many of whom
are required to pay taxes but none of whom gets to elect a
voting member of Congress.
Now, Reps. Tom Davis, R-Va., and Eleanor Holmes Norton, the
District's non-voting representative to Congress, have teamed
to sponsor an innovative plan thought to have the best shot
in years of closing the gap between principle and practice.
The D.C. Voting Rights Act of 2007 would expand the number
of U.S. House seats from 435 to 437, balancing a predictably
Democratic D.C. vote with one from a new, predictably
Republican Utah district.
Previous expansions of congressional membership sought
similar balance. At the last census, Utah came within a
whisker of getting an additional seat. It fell short, Utahans
claim, only because hundreds of young Mormon missionaries
were on the road and weren't counted.
The Norton-Davis legislation passed both the House
Government Operations Committee, which Davis used to chair,
and the Judiciary Committee, but never made it to the floor
when Republicans controlled the House.
Now, the Democrats in charge expect to bring the proposal
to a floor vote, probably later this month.
Opponents of the bill question its constitutionality,
noting that Article 1 says members should be chosen by ``the
people of the several states.'' Norton-Davis counters that
the District actually had a voting representative for several
years around the turn of the 19th century, so the precedent
already is set.
Various constitutional scholars have opined that the
framers clearly intended for all the nation's citizens to
have voting representation at the highest levels of
government. Conservatives ascribing to that view include
former U.S. Circuit Judge Kenneth W. Starr, who served on the
D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.
So long as a reasonable constitutional reading supports the
legislation, and it does, Norton-Davis ought to pass.
A large block of taxpaying citizens should not to be
disenfranchised through no fault of their own. Tom Davis and
Eleanor Holmes Norton have offered a reasonable fix.
____
[From the Columbian, Jan. 4, 2007]
In Our View--Fair is Fair
And D.C. residents are not getting a fair deal.
Here are 435 voting members of the U.S. House of
Representatives. Washington, the 15th largest state with 6.3
million residents, has nine of them. That's 2.068 percent of
the House.
Wyoming, the nation's smallest state with 509,000 people,
has one House member--0.229 percent.
With 550,000-plus residents, the District of Columbia,
which would rank one above Wyoming if it were a state, has
zero voting members in the House.
That's 0.000 percent.
That's not fair.
Congress can rectify this inequality and fix a glitch in
the Utah's House apportionment at the same time. Our federal
lawmakers should enact a proposal to increase House voting
members to 437. One new seat would go to the District of
Columbia and one to Utah. The D.C. seat would almost
certainly be won by a Democrat and Utah's by a Republican.
The reasons for D.C. being shorted on representation for
more than two centuries are numerous and of debatable
legitimacy. What is indisputable is that more than a half-
million Americans living in the very city that is the seat of
federal government face federal taxation without
representation, and it isn't fair. Utah's two U.S. senators
and the state's political establishment support this idea,
which died in the Republican-controlled Congress last month.
They make a convincing case that in the 2000 census, Utah was
undercounted because many of the state's young Mormons were
out of state doing missionary
[[Page H2856]]
work. Had they all been counted, the argument goes, Utah
would have earned a fourth House member and some other state
would have lost one.
There are two legitimate concerns. One is that the
Constitution says members of the House shall be chosen by
``the people of the several states'' and D.C. is not a state.
But, many scholars say the Constitution also gives Congress
power ``to exercise exclusive legislation'' over D.C. and
therefore may give the District a voting member of the House.
Then there's the fear that if Congress starts down this
road, it will add House members on political whims in the
future. But that hasn't been the practice. In fact, Congress
added two seats in 1959, giving one each to the new states of
Alaska and Hawaii, but after the 1960 census cut the total
back to 435. The new states kept one each and other states
gave up the two, based on population.
A legitimate case can be made that D.C. should get one seat
and Utah should get nothing until the next census. But this
Utah-D.C. scenario is the best chance in decades for the
District of Columbia to get rightful representation. In the
name of fairness, Congress should make it happen.
____
[From the Battle Creek Enquirer (MI), Jan. 5, 2007]
Proposal Would Give D.C. and Utah New House Seats
For years, the fact that residents of Washington, D.C.,
have no voting representation in Congress has been a
political hot potato. In 1961, the 23rd Amendment to the
Constitution gave them the right to vote in presidential
elections, and a decade later Congress voted to allow the
district to send a nonvoting delegate to the House. That
delegate currently is Eleanor Holmes Norton, who is allowed
to vote on matters at the committee level, but not once they
come to the House floor.
Now Congress may soon consider a bill that would increase
the voting membership of the House from 435 to 437, adding
new seats both for the District of Columbia and Utah.
The argument for giving Utah a fourth House seat is
supported by those who insist the 2000 census undercounted
Utah's population because of the many young Mormon men who
travel out of that state as part of their missionary work.
Since D.C. is considered a Democratic stronghold and Utah
is dominated by Republicans, the proposal has gained
bipartisan support and could be taken up early in this
congressional session.
The District of Columbia was created to provide an
independent site for federal government that did not favor
anyone state. Congress moved there from Philadelphia in 1800,
and shortly thereafter the question of voting rights for D.C.
residents became an issue. The lack of a voting
representative long has been a sore point for many of the
district's approximately 600,000 residents, who pay federal
taxes and must abide by rules established by Congress.
Congress approved a constitutional amendment to provide a
voting representative for district residents in 1978, but it
failed to be ratified by three-fourths of the states.
There is debate among scholars as to whether increasing the
number of House members requires a constitutional amendment,
but supporters of this latest proposal insist that it does
not. They say that all that is required is for Congress to
revise a 1929 law that fixed House membership at 435 seats.
That limit was boosted to 437 in 1959 in order to give
representatives to the new states of Alaska and Hawaii, but
then went back to 435 with the reapportionment after the 1960
census.
Washington, D.C., is the only national capital in any
democratic nation where residents do not have full voting
rights. We think district residents should have a voting
representative in Congress, and there is merit to the D.C.-
Utah proposal that we hope will be considered soon by federal
lawmakers.
____
[From washingtonpost.com, Mar. 22, 2007]
D.C. Voting: A GOP Issue--Opposition to a House Seat Goes Against Party
Tradition
(By Carol Schwartz)
Having personally written to President Bush and Congress
numerous times over the years urging them to support voting
rights for the citizens of our nation's capital, I was
disheartened to learn that the Republican leadership is
working to defeat legislation that would add a voting member
from the District of Columbia and a voting member from Utah
to the House of Representatives, and that the president is
thinking about vetoing the bill. As a fellow Republican, I
beseech them to reconsider.
News accounts indicate that Republican opposition is based
largely on ``constitutional concerns.'' However, respected
constitutional scholars have argued that a congressional vote
for the District is well within the bounds of the
Constitution. Former solicitor general Kenneth Starr and
Patricia M. Wald, a former chief judge of the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, jointly wrote, ``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.'' Viet Dihn, a Georgetown
University law professor and principal author of the USA
Patriot Act, argued in a paper submitted to the House
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform that it is
constitutional to give the District a vote.
Regardless of the outcome of this debate, why would the
president--who has committed so much to fighting for
democracy around the world--and Republican members of
Congress not stand on the side of democracy for the 572,000
residents of the District of Columbia? Who is going to
challenge in court the rectification of this centuries-long
injustice? And if someone is cruel enough to try, let the
Supreme Court decide otherwise.
I want to remind my fellow Republicans that historically
our party has been at the forefront of struggles to
enfranchise citizens and expand basic rights. It was a
Republican Congress, the 38th, that proposed the 13th
Amendment to abolish slavery. It was a Republican Congress,
the 39th, that proposed the 14th Amendment, guaranteeing due
process and equal protection under the law. It was a
Republican Congress, the 40th, that proposed the 15th
Amendment, guaranteeing citizens the right to vote regardless
of their race. And it was a Republican Congress, the 66th,
that proposed the 19th Amendment, guaranteeing women the
right to vote.
I had hoped that the recent Republican Congress would
continue this admirable tradition. The introduction of a D.C.
voting rights bill by a Republican, Rep. Tom Davis (Va.), was
a good start. Although the bill made it out of committee,
unfortunately it never went to the House floor. President
Bush and Congress still have the opportunity to advance the
democratic cause here at home. And they should, particularly
since ours is the only capital city in any of the world's
democracies where citizens do not have voting representation
in their national legislature.
In doing so, Republican members would uphold a proud
tradition as well as be in good company. For generations,
respected Republican statesmen have expressed support for
voting rights for D.C. residents. Former Senate majority
leader Robert Dole, during an earlier voting rights effort,
said, ``The Republican Party supported D.C. voting
representation because it was just, and in justice we could
do nothing else.'' Former Senate minority leader Howard
Baker, describing representation in the legislature as the
``bedrock of our republic,'' said that Congress ``cannot
continue to deny American citizens their right to equal
representation in the national government.'' Former president
Richard Nixon said, ``It should offend the democratic sense
of this nation that the citizens of its capital . . . have no
voice in Congress.'' And former senator Prescott Bush, the
president's grandfather, said in 1961, ``Congress has treated
the District with slight consideration. We have treated it
like a stepchild, in comparison with the way we have treated
other States. . . . They should also be entitled to
representation in the Congress.''
It is obvious that this injustice has persisted far too
long. Our country's leaders have within their power the
ability to address it now. It is time to give the residents
of the District of Columbia--who pay federal taxes and who
were subject to the military draft--a fundamental right that
all other Americans enjoy: our long overdue vote in the
United States House of Representatives. I implore the
president and Congress to do what I believe they know in
their hearts is right.
____
[From the Washington Times, Mar. 20, 2007]
D.C. Voting Rights and Congressional Politics
(By Tod Lindberg)
When I moved to Washington 21 years ago and decided to live
in the District rather than Maryland or Virginia, I knew I
was voluntarily choosing to forgo something most Americans
take entirely for granted, namely, their say in choosing a
representative in the House and two members of the Senate. In
truth, I was not especially bothered by this lost opportunity
for political participation then, nor am I now.
You could say, moreover, that no one lives in the District
involuntarily. If voting for a member of Congress and
senators is a sufficiently high priority for you, you can
probably find your way to a location that allows you to do
so. And you could remark, as well, the special constitutional
status of the District as precisely not a state, equal among
other states, but rather a place where the representatives of
all the states, that is, Congress as a whole, has
jurisdiction. One might even deem this constitutional
provision to have been an innovative and admirable solution
to the late 18th-century problem of the undue influence a
state might have were it home to the nation's capital.
Nor is the District some sort of island of authoritarianism
in a sea of democracies. D.C. residents have for more than a
generation enjoyed substantial home-rule powers, including
the ability to elect a legislative body, the D.C. Council,
and a mayor who has genuine and not merely symbolic power. It
is undeniable that Congress second-guesses these locally
elected officials from time to time, and indeed reserves the
right to intervene on a massive scale in case of local
mismanagement, a judgment Congress alone will make, not
subject to appeal by local residents. We saw this in the days
of the Control Board. But in the ordinary course of events,
substantial political decisions are the province of locally
elected officials. And
[[Page H2857]]
even at the national level, the District is not entirely cut
out, since it has three votes in the electoral college that
decides the presidency, the same number as the least populous
states.
Nevertheless, how exactly is it a good thing that residents
of the District, uniquely among American taxpayers, have no
representation in Congress? I think critics of the proposal
now emerging to replace the District's participation-limited
delegate with a full-fledged voting member of Congress owe us
an explanation of why it's better for the country for
residents of the District not to be able to have a share in
selecting a member of the national legislature. That includes
the White House, which has expressed opposition to the
legislation on constitutional grounds.
If the provision of the Constitution holding that members
of Congress shall come from the states (by implication, not
from anywhere that isn't a state) is dispositive, then why
not let the Supreme Court be the body that says so? Since at
least some legal scholars believe that the provision cited is
not the last and dispositive word on the subject, why pre-
empt the question? Or rather, please, let us hear the reason
from the executive branch why the president would choose to
pre-empt by asserting his view of the Constitution in his
veto message when the legislation gets to his desk.
No, presidents and lawmakers shouldn't be casual about the
responsibility they accept in their oaths of office to
protect and defend the Constitution. But in this instance, we
have a true anomaly, hundreds of thousands of people who lack
what every other American taxpayer has, an equal say in the
selection of a lawmaker.
It's not obvious that taking action to address this anomaly
would harm any other interest the Constitution protects. Oh,
one can spin out elaborate and paranoid scenarios, according
to which the representative from the District of Columbia
becomes the chairperson of a powerful committee and then, uh,
well, what exactly? Earmarks federal dollars to construct
bike paths in D.C.? Federally funded bike paths may be
stupid, but they are no more stupid in the District than in
any congressional district.
In fact, addressing this anomaly of disenfranchisement
would fit into a centuries-long tradition of expanding the
franchise to those whom contemporaneous reasoning now
concludes are unreasonably excluded. If taking such action
requires a constitutional amendment, let the Supreme Court
say so.
It seems to me that the only other possible objection,
besides the constitutional one, is politics. And it's a
pretty serious one, in that the representative from the
District would be a Democrat for the foreseeable future. Why
would Republicans be willing to go along with an extra
Democrat? But that's the beauty of the proposed legislation:
In adding a seat to Republican-friendly Utah, thereby
increasing the size of the House from 435 to 437, lawmakers
came up with a reasonable way to address a longstanding
injustice without harming anyone unduly. They devised a fair
political solution to a fair political objection.
They don't do this so often, in the scheme of things, that
we should neglect supporting them when they do.
____
[From Roll Call, Feb. 28, 2007]
Vote for D.C.
Now that Democrats have control of the House, it's simply
inexplicable that legislation to give voting rights to the
District of Columbia's delegate is not moving rapidly toward
passage.
Voting rights for D.C. has broad support in the majority
party, including that of both Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.)
and House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (Mich.). Yet no
hearings have been scheduled on H.R. 328, co-sponsored by
D.C. Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D) and Rep. Tom Davis (R-
Va.), to give Norton voting rights while giving Utah a fourth
Congressional seat and enlarging the House to 437 Members.
The bill does present constitutional problems, as a recent
Congressional Research Service report details. Article 1,
Section 2 of the Constitution stipulates that the House shall
be made up of Members chosen every two years by the people of
the several states. Since D.C. is not a state, but a
constitutionally designated federal district, a CRS analysis
concluded last month that ``it is difficult to identify
either Constitutional text or existing case law that would
directly support the allocation by statute of the power to
vote in the full House of the D.C. delegate.''
On the other hand, Article 1, Section 8 grants Congress
exclusive legislative authority ``in all cases whatsoever''
over the District. As another CRS report suggested last
month, there is a conflict here. We suggest that Congress
resolve it by passing the Norton-Davis bill promptly and then
await a court test to determine its constitutionality. If the
measure is struck down, Congress should look for other
methods to grant voting rights to the District, which the
principle of representative government demands.
The other options include a constitutional amendment;
``retrocession,'' giving D.C. residents the right to vote in
Maryland; and Congressional action making D.C. (or at least
part of it) a state. Everyone of these solutions presents a
political problem--the fact that D.C. is overwhelmingly
Democratic--that the Norton-Davis bill neatly skirted by
balancing a vote in D.C. with a vote in overwhelmingly
Republican Utah.
Meanwhile, the House has taken symbolic action by giving
D.C., as well as other U.S. possessions--Puerto Rico,
American Samoa, Guam and the Virgin Islands--a vote when the
House meets as a Committee of the Whole. But their votes
don't count if they make the difference in the outcome of
legislation. This amounts to the right to participate but not
to have an effect.
D.C., with about 570,000 residents, has a larger population
than Wyoming and is shy by only about 100,000 of matching
three other states--which, of course, have two Senators and
at least one House Member. We hope that the Democratic
Congress will pass a measure granting D.C. full voting
rights--and that President Bush will sign it. In the
meantime, however, the Judiciary Committee and the House
should get on with passing Norton-Davis as an interim step
toward justice.
____
[From the Washington Post, May 3, 2005]
A Vote in the House
WHEN THE HOUSE of Representatives votes on federal taxes or
decides solemn questions such as when citizens must go off to
war, the District's representative, Eleanor Holmes Norton,
has to stand and watch as her Democratic and Republican
colleagues decide the fate of her constituents. Despite
having served and died in 10 wars and paid billions in
federal taxes, D.C. residents are still voteless in Congress.
That inexecusable situation exists despite polls showing that
the American public favors congressional representation for
D.C. residents. Today Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.) will
launch a second effort to rectify at least half of the
problem by sponsoring a bill that gives the District a vote
in the House. The measure would still leave the District
unrepresented in the Senate. The Davis proposal, however, is
a substantial advance in D.C. voting rights and deserves
strong bipartisan support in Congress.
Mr. Davis's measure would achieve the goal of giving the
district a single vote by increasing the size of the House by
two and reapportioning seats. Given the most recent census,
the likely result would be an extra seat for Utah along with
the District. And given party registration and voting
patterns in the two jurisdictions, the Utah seat is likely to
be held by a Republican and the District's by a Democrat. The
new arrangement would last, under Mr. Davis's proposal, until
the regular 2012 reapportionment, at which time the House
would revert to 435 members to be divided by population among
the District and the states. No matter what happens to the
size of Utah's delegation at that point, the District would
keep its seat.
This should be a win-win situation. For those hoping to
address the controversy over the last census count, when Utah
just barely lost out on a fourth seat, Mr. Davis offers a
remedy. As far as the District is concerned, the bill will
most assuredly give D.C. residents what Mr. Davis has called
``the primary tool of democratic participation:
representation in the national legislature.''
Unfortunately, blind partisanship may trump democracy
unless members take a stand against the present injustice.
Fear that the Republican-dominated Utah state legislature
would redraw lines to doom a Democratic member of the House
caused Democrats to balk at the Davis proposal in the last
Congress. We have stated on other occasions our own dislike
for the way redistricting is being conducted in most states--
amounting to little more than state-sanctioned gerrymandering
benefiting incumbents, the majority party or both--and have
offered our own thoughts on a proper alternative. However,
depriving more than half a million District residents of a
fundamental right enjoyed by all other Americans because of
partisan politics is neither a proper nor an acceptable
response by the Democratic Party. A D.C. vote in the House is
the right thing to do. We remain fully committed to the
District having two senators as well as representation in the
House. The Davis proposal takes the nation's capital halfway
there.
____
[From the Hill]
Let D.C. Play
The people of the District of Columbia have finally gotten
back their rightful representation in Major League Baseball;
the Washington Nationals have swiftly become an established
and moderately successful National League team. It now seems
odd that there were people who argued the D.C. residents
already had a local team--by which they meant the Orioles,
beyond the Maryland state line in Baltimore. All that has
changed; when there is a pennant to be won, the District will
no longer have to sit on the sidelines.
Something like this happy event is now possible in the
political arena, too, with Rep. Tom Davis's (R-Va)
legislation that would temporarily increase House membership
to 437 by giving D.C. one voting seat, and Utah an extra one.
After the next census, the number would fall again to 435,
but Washington would keep its seat, and the remaining 434
would be divided among the states according to population.
This as it should be. It is an injustice and an
embarrassment that people who live in the nation's capital
are disenfranchised. They have no less a moral right to a say
in the policies that govern them than any other American
citizens. It is pleasing that they now have another chance of
acquiring the
[[Page H2858]]
legal right as well. No partisan calculations should cloud
principle when lawmakers vote on this issue. Davis's bill
deserves to become law.
If the baseball analogy may be stretched yet further,
however, it is also worth noting that the new team did not
adopt the same name as the team that abandoned Washington a
generation ago: the Senators. There are those who argue that
the District should also have two senators in the upper
chamber of Capitol Hill, but the case for this is less
convincing than for voting representation in the House.
The House is a proportional body, in that seats are
apportioned according to population numbers. But the Senate
is not representative in that way--never was, and never was
intended to be. Indeed it was, as is often being said these
days, designed as a counter-weight to the power of the more
purely representative body. Tiny states such as Delaware and
Wyoming have two senators, just as huge ones such as
California and Texas have two. Until the passage of the 17h
Amendment in 1913, senators generally were chosen by state
legislatures rather than directly elected by the people.
Senate representation is the preserve of formal statehood
and there are reasonable arguments on both sides as to
whether D.C. should become a state. Whatever the dispute in
principle, however, there is no chance of D.C. statehood
soon. Perhaps it will come, but for now it's enough that
House representation is on the table again.
____
[From Roll Call, May 4, 2005]
Give D.C. a Vote
If the District of Columbia were a state, it would rank
third in per-capita income taxes paid to the federal
government. In America's wars of the 20th century, the
District suffered more casualties than several states did. So
there is no excuse for the nation to continue to leave D.C.
residents without any representation in Congress.
Ideally, the District should be represented in both the
House and Senate, as called for in Democratic-backed
legislation introduced by D.C. Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D)
and Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.). Unfortunately, that bill
has zero chance of passing and being signed into law. So, as
an interim measure--and we acknowledge it may be a long
interim--we urge leaders of both parties to get behind the
bill just reintroduced by Rep. Tom Davis (R-Va.) to give D.C.
a vote in the House. The measure would temporarily enlarge
the House by two, adding one seat for the District and one
for heavily Republican Utah--a constructive nod toward the
partisan balance that seems to be a prerequisite for passage.
The Constitution gives Congress all the power it needs to
give D.C. a vote in Congress. In fact, Congress has the power
``to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever''
over the capital district. Legal scholars, including
conservatives such as former federal appeals court judge
Kenneth Starr, agree that the Constitution permits Congress
free rein on the issue of representation. While statehood
would require a constitutional amendment, voting
representation would not.
We're glad to see that the idea of giving the District
representation has attracted the support of Republicans.
Davis' measure has 11 GOP co-sponsors, including two from
Utah. Two other bills, both of which would give D.C.
residents voting rights in Maryland by different means, are
also sponsored by Republicans, Reps. Dana Rohrabacher
(Calif.) and Ralph Regula (Ohio).
Unfortunately, the GOP sponsors have not been able to
interest their party's leaders in their measures. In fact,
when Republicans took control of the House in 1995, one of
their first acts was to reverse a Democratic rule allowing
the D.C. Delegate to vote in the Committee of the whole House
when that vote was not decisive in the outcome. We hope that
Davis, the influential chairman of the Government Reform
Committee and former chairman of the National Republican
Congressional Committee, can convince his leaders of the
merits of the cause.
Some Democrats have been opposed, both because they support
full representation and because they fear that Utah's GOP-
dominated Legislature might eliminate the state's lone
Democratic district in the process of a mid-decade
reapportionment. The state's GOP Members should pledge not to
pursue such a course.
There's not much that Republicans and Democrats are doing
together in this Congress. One thing that they can do,
however, is expand democracy right in their own backyard.
____
[From Human Events.com, Mar. 17, 2007]
Why I Voted for D.C. Representation in the House
(By Rep. Mike Pence)
Last week in the House Judiciary Committee, I voted in
favor of legislation granting the residents of the District
of Columbia the right to full voting representation in the
House of Representatives. I believe this legislation is a
constitutional remedy to a historic wrong. While many have
focused on the political consequences of such a move, the
only question for a Member of Congress on such matters is
this: what does justice demand and what does the Constitution
of the United States permit Congress to do to remedy this
wrong?
The fact that more than half a million Americans living in
the District of Columbia are denied a single voting
representative in Congress is clearly a historic wrong and
justice demands that it be addressed. At the time of the
adoption of our present system of government, the federal
city did not exist apart from a reference in the
Constitution. When the District of Columbia opened for
business in 1801, only a few thousand residents lived within
her boundaries. Among the founders, only Alexander Hamilton
would forsee the bustling metropolis that Washington, D.C.
would become and he advocated voting representation for the
citizens of the District.
The demands of history in favor of representation for the
Americans living in Washington, D.C. is compelling. In
establishing the republic, the single overarching principle
of the American founding was that laws should be based upon
the consent of the governed. The first generation of
Americans threw tea in Boston harbor because they were denied
a voting representative in the national legislature in
England. Given their fealty to representative democracy, it
is inconceivable to me that our Founders would have been
willing to accept the denial of representation to so great a
throng of Americans in perpetuity.
But the demands of justice are not enough for Congress to
act. Under the principles of limited government, a republic
may only take that action which is authorized by the written
Constitution.
In this regard, I believe that the legislation moving
through the Congress is constitutional. And I am not alone in
this view. In support of this legislation, Judge Kenneth
Starr, former independent counsel and U.S. solicitor general
observed, ``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''.
Opponents of D.C. Voting understandably cite the plain
language of Article I that the House of Representatives be
comprised of representatives elected by ``the people of the
several states''. If this were the only reference to the
powers associated with the federal city, it would be most
persuasive but it is not. Article I, Section 8, CI. 17
provides, ``The Congress shall have power . . . to exercise
exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever'' over the
District of Columbia.
Justice Antonin Scalia observed in 1984, that the Seat of
Government Clause, gives Congress ``extraordinary and
plenary'' power over our nation's capital. Scalia added that
this provision of the Constitution ``enables Congress to do
many things in the District of Columbia which it has no
authority to do in the 50 states. . . . There has never been
any rule of law that Congress must treat people in the
District of Columbia exactly the same as people are treated
in various states''. United States v. Cohen, 733 F.2d 128,
140 (D.C. Cir. 1984)
And Congress has used this power to remedy the rights of
Americans in the District of Columbia in the past. In 1949,
the Supreme Court upheld legislation that extended access to
the federal courts even though Article III expressly limited
the jurisdiction of the federal courts to suits brought by
citizens of different states. As Judge Starr observed, ``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''.
None of which argues for the District of Columbia to ever
be granted the right to elect members of the United States
Senate. In the most profound sense, from the inception of our
nation, the House of Representatives was an extension of the
people. I believe our founders left us the tools in the
Constitution to ensure that all the American people have a
voice in the people's house.
The Senate, from the inception of our nation, was an
extension of the states. Senators were appointed by state
legislatures until 1915. The Senate was and remains the
expression of the principle of federalism in the national
legislature and should ever be so. If the people of the
District of Columbia would like two seats in the United
States Senate, they will have to become a state.
The old book tells us what is required, ``do justice, love
kindness and walk humbly with your God.'' I believe that
justice demands we right this historic wrong. The American
people should have representation in the people's house. I
believe that kindness demands that, like Republicans from
Abraham Lincoln to Jack Kemp, we do the right thing for all
Americans regardless of race or political creed. And I
believe humility demands that we do so in a manner consistent
with our constitution, laws and traditions. The D.C. Voting
bill meets this test and I am honored to have the opportunity
to continue to play some small role in leading our
constitutional republic ever closer to a more perfect union.
Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, has the gentleman yielded back his time?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I want to end this debate by finally
letting genuine constitutional scholars speak to this bill.
To guarantee the Framers' promise to the citizens of Maryland and
Virginia, who contributed their land to form this Capital City, the
very first Congress enforced the District clause of the Constitution by
law, guaranteeing the status quo during the 10-
[[Page H2859]]
year transition period, and they said, by law thereafter, as
memorialized in the Constitution itself.
The Framers had left Congress fully armed with ``exclusive
jurisdiction in all cases whatsoever,'' which former Court of Appeals
Judge Kenneth Starr, who testified in favor of the bill, said, left
Congress with power ``majestic in scope.''
Professor Viet Dinh, President Bush's former Attorney General for
Legal Policy, his point man on the Constitution in the Ashcroft Justice
Department, testified in two separate committees that the bill is
constitutional. He said that since the birth of the Republic, the
courts and the Congress itself have treated the District as a State in
treaties and in statutes and in applying the Constitution to the city.
Members who reject the views even of conservative scholars and of the
Supreme Court and the Federal courts supporting their views should be
confident to send this bill to a conservative Supreme Court.
Members are elected officials who can neither run nor hide behind
their personal and inexpert views on the Constitution. Another branch
will be held fully accountable for that weighty decision. Our decision,
in just a few minutes, is just as weighty, today when the world sees us
at war, we say, to spread democracy and wants to know whether we
practice democracy or merely preach it. Our decision comes down to
whether this House wants to be remembered for granting the vote or
denying it, and whether this place will be the people's House or the
House for some of the people.
Mr. WYNN. Madam Speaker, I represent the 4th District of Maryland
which abuts the District of Columbia. These citizens are our friends,
neighbors, and relatives. It is time to give the citizens of the
District of Columbia full representation in the House of
Representatives. It is time to end the injustice of ``taxation without
representation'' for the District and give these good citizens the
right to vote.
For 206 years, the citizens of the District of Columbia have paid
taxes, served in the military and worked hard for this great country
and yet, for over 200 years these citizens have been denied the right
to representation. The United States is the only democracy in the world
that, to date, has deprived the residents of its capital city full
voting representation.
We have sent thousands of soldiers overseas and spent billions of
dollars fighting to bring democracy to the rest of the world. We must
stand on the side of democracy in our country and give our own citizens
in the District of Columbia the right to vote and an opportunity for
full representation in this great democracy.
Mr. LANGEVIN. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1433,
the District of Columbia Fair and Equal House Voting Rights Act of
2007.
Today, the House of Representatives has a chance to correct an
injustice that affects the nearly 600,000 residents of the District of
Columbia. These citizens pay Federal taxes, serve in our military and
the Federal Government and graciously host millions of American and
foreign tourists every year, yet they remain unable to have their views
represented in Congress. It is indeed ironic that the capital of our
Nation, where our government and many non-governmental organizations
work to promote freedom and liberty in other countries, is not
representative of the ideals that we urge others to value. We have the
chance to rectify this glaring problem today.
One of the primary justifications of the American Revolution was our
forefathers' opposition to ``taxation without representation.'' Indeed,
in my home town Warwick, angry Rhode Islanders attacked and burned the
British customs ship H.M.S. Gaspee in 1772 to demonstrate their
opposition to British rule--one of the earliest acts of rebellion
leading to the American Revolution. Fortunately, the residents of the
District of Columbia have not resorted to such extreme tactics to
achieve justice, but they have been more than patient, waiting more
than 200 years for a right that is enjoyed by 300 million other
Americans.
The bipartisan legislation before us today would give the District of
Columbia a voting member in the House, as well as create a second new
seat for Utah, thereby raising the number of Members in the House to
437. It would finally grant Washingtonians a voice in Federal
legislation involving health, governance, budgeting, taxes, gun control
and other matters directly affecting their lives and livelihoods. Our
current system of disenfranchisement for District residents does not
befit a nation as noble as the United States, and it is time for
change.
Madam Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support H.R. 1433 so that
we may grant fair representation to the residents of Washington, DC.
Mr. CANNON. Madam Speaker, today, the House is presented with a
unique opportunity to address two prevailing problems with
representation in the House.
One relates to whether the District is entitled to a Representative
and the other whether Utah is owed an additional seat in Congress
because of the illegitimate counting of residents after the 2000
census.
Utah lost out on a 4th seat because of a census bureau decision to
count, and to enumerate to their respective home States, government
employees residing temporarily abroad, but not count similarly situated
missionaries.
Had the Bureau either not counted any Americans residing temporarily
abroad, or counted all such Americans and not just those employed by
the Federal Government, Utah would have been awarded a fourth seat.
Although this legislation provides Utah the seat it deserves and was
denied in the 2000 census, I do have concerns with the language in the
bill which ties the hands of the Utah legislature.
The preemption language is offensive and demeans the historic role of
States in the reapportionment process.
I offered an amendment that was rejected by the Rules Committee on a
7-4 vote that would have simply removed the language of the bill
mandating the ``at large'' seat in Section 4 and left it to the State
to decide.
The amendment would have changed ``shall'' to ``may'', and would not
have prohibited an at large seat, but rather would have provided Utah
the opportunity to choose whether to redistrict or not.
The intent of my amendment was to reaffirm the role of the State in
the decisionmaking process, but the Democrats treated the 10th
Amendment of the Constitution as words without meaning by rejecting my
amendment.
Although I will vote in favor of this legislation, as this bill moves
forward I will continue my efforts to push for inclusion of my
amendment to protect the State's role in the process.
Mr. SHAYS. Madam Speaker, as an original cosponsor of H.R. 1433, I am
pleased we are moving quickly to consider this legislation, to finally
give Washington, DC voting rights in the House of Representatives.
This bill would establish the District of Columbia as a congressional
district and thus grant the citizens of the District representation in
Congress.
The legislation also would grant an additional congressional seat to
Utah based on the results of the 2000 Census.
Unlike some previous versions of this legislation, H.R. 1433 would
make these two seats permanent.
The Oversight and Government Reform Committee has led the charge on
granting the city of Washington, DC the right to have a full vote in
the House of Representatives.
The citizens of the District pay Federal taxes, so it is only right
they have a say in Federal affairs.
Madam Speaker, I urge the support of this important and historic
legislation.
Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Madam Speaker, I rise today in
opposition to H.R. 1422, the District of Columbia House Voting Rights
Act.
Our Constitution clearly states that Members of Congress should be
chosen by residents of States.
However much we might revere our Nation's capital and appreciate its
residents, our Founders decided not to make it a State.
In fact, Alexander Hamilton offered an amendment at the 1788
Constitution ratification convention to give D.C. representation in the
House, but his amendment was rejected.
In 1978, the 95th Congress passed a similar amendment, but only 16 of
the required 38 States ratified it in the 7 year time period before it
expired.
The message from these votes is clear: only residents of States may
have representation in Congress.
The Constitution lays out a method for adding a new State to our
Nation.
If we truly want D.C. to have congressional representation, we can
either work to make D.C. a State, make it part of an existing State, or
we can either amend the Constitution, like the 95th Congress attempted
to do.
And if we actually did this the right way, we wouldn't spend years in
litigation while D.C. residents' votes hang in the balance.
Listen up America! This bill is merely a shortcut around the tools we
have at our disposal, and is therefore blatantly unconstitutional.
I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, I strongly support the DC House Voting
Rights Act. It is long overdue to give the nearly two-thirds of a
million residents of our Nation's Capital the fundamental right of
representation.
This is not a partisan issue. Maintaining a fair and responsive
government is a duty that transcends politics.
[[Page H2860]]
This legislation fairly addresses both parties by granting one seat in
the House to the District and one additional seat to Utah, which is
next in line to receive an additional House seat based on its
population. This elegant and equitable solution leaves the overall
composition of the House unchanged as the District seat is anticipated
to be Democratic and the Utah seat Republican.
Given this bipartisan spirit, I am disappointed that the
administration is fighting to deny citizens their basic voting rights.
I hope the President has the good sense to withdraw his veto threat.
Any concerns this administration has regarding this bill's
constitutional appropriateness are best left up to the judicial branch
to clarify.
I am proud to support this important legislation and urge its speedy
passage into law. Residents of the District have waited long enough.
Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 260, the previous question is ordered on
the bill, as amended.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Smith of Texas
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. SMITH of Texas. I am, Madam Speaker, in its current form.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Smith of Texas moves to recommit the bill H.R. 1433 to
the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform with
instructions to report the same back to the House promptly
with the following amendment:
Add at the end the following new section:
SEC. 6. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PERSONAL PROTECTION.
(a) Reform D.C. Council's Authority To Restrict Firearms.--
Section 4 of the Act entitled ``An Act to prohibit the
killing of wild birds and wild animals in the District of
Columbia'', approved June 30, 1906 (34 Stat. 809; sec. 1-
303.43, D.C. Official Code) is amended by adding at the end
the following: ``Nothing in this section or any other
provision of law shall authorize, or shall be construed to
permit, the Council, the Mayor, or any governmental or
regulatory authority of the District of Columbia to prohibit,
constructively prohibit, or unduly burden the ability of
persons not prohibited from possessing firearms under Federal
law from acquiring, possessing in their homes or businesses,
or using for sporting, self-protection or other lawful
purposes, any firearm neither prohibited by Federal law nor
subject to the National Firearms Act. The District of
Columbia shall not have authority to enact laws or
regulations that discourage or eliminate the private
ownership or use of firearms.''.
(b) Repeal D.C. Semiautomatic Ban.--
(1) In general.--Section 101(10) of the Firearms Control
Regulations Act of 1975 (sec. 7-2501.01(10), D.C. Official
Code) is amended to read as follows:
``(10) `Machine gun' means any firearm which shoots, is
designed to shoot, or can be readily converted or restored to
shoot automatically, more than 1 shot by a single function of
the trigger, and includes the frame or receiver of any such
weapon, any part designed and intended solely and
exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended,
for use in converting a weapon into a machine gun, and any
combination of parts from which a machine gun can be
assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the
control of a person.''.
(2) Conforming amendment to provisions setting forth
criminal penalties.--Section 1(c) of the Act of July 8, 1932
(47 Stat. 651; sec. 22--4501(c), D.C. Official Code) is
amended to read as follows:
``(c) `Machine gun', as used in this Act, has the meaning
given such term in section 101(10) of the Firearms Control
Regulations Act of 1975.''.
(c) Repeal Registration Requirement.--
(1) Repeal of requirement.--
(A) In general.--Section 201(a) of the Firearms Control
Regulations Act of 1975 (sec. 7-2502.01(a), D.C. Official
Code) is amended by striking ``any firearm, unless'' and all
that follows through paragraph (3) and inserting the
following: ``any firearm described in subsection (c).''.
(B) Description of firearms remaining illegal.--Section 201
of such Act (sec. 7-2502.01, D.C. Official Code) is amended
by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(c) A firearm described in this subsection is any of the
following:
``(1) A sawed-off shotgun.
``(2) A machine gun.
``(3) A short-barreled rifle.''.
(C) Conforming amendment.--The heading of section 201 of
such Act (sec. 7--2502.01, D.C. Official Code) is amended by
striking ``Registration requirements'' and inserting
``Firearm Possession''.
(2) Conforming amendments to firearms control regulations
act.--The Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 is amended
as follows:
(A) Sections 202 through 211 (secs. 7-2502.02 through 7-
2502.11, D.C. Official Code) are repealed.
(B) Section 101 (sec. 7--2501.01, D.C. Official Code) is
amended by striking paragraph (13).
(C) Section 401 (sec. 7--2504.01, D.C. Official Code) is
amended--
(i) in subsection (a), by striking ``the District;'' and
all that follows and inserting the following: ``the District,
except that a person may engage in hand loading, reloading,
or custom loading of ammunition for firearms lawfully
possessed under this Act.''; and
(ii) in subsection (b), by striking ``which are
unregisterable under section 202'' and inserting ``which are
prohibited under section 201''.
(D) Section 402 (sec. 7--2504.02, D.C. Official Code) is
amended--
(i) in subsection (a), by striking ``Any person eligible to
register a firearm'' and all that follows through ``such
business,'' and inserting the following: ``Any person not
otherwise prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm
under Federal of District law, or from being licensed under
section 923 of title 18, United States Code,''; and
(ii) in subsection (b), by amending paragraph (1) to read
as follows:
``(1) The applicant's name;''.
(E) Section 403(b) (sec. 7--2504.03(b), D.C. Official Code)
is amended by striking ``registration certificate'' and
inserting ``dealer's license''.
(F) Section 404(a)(3) (sec. 7--2504.04(a)(3)), D.C.
Official Code) is amended--
(i) in subparagraph (B)(i), by striking ``registration
certificate number (if any) of the firearm,'';
(ii) in subparagraph (B)(iv), by striking ``holding the
registration certificate'' and inserting ``from whom it was
received for repair'';
(iii) in subparagraph (C)(i), by striking ``and
registration certificate number (if any) of the firearm'';
(iv) in subparagraph (C)(ii), by striking ``registration
certificate number or'';
(v) in subparagraph (D)(ii), by striking ``or registration
number''; and
(vi) in subparagraph (E), by striking clause (iii) and
redesignating clauses (iv) and (v) as clauses (iii) and (iv).
(G) Section 406(c) (sec. 7--2504.06(c), D.C. Official Code)
is amended to read as follows:
``(c) Within 45 days of a decision becoming effective which
is unfavorable to a licensee or to an applicant for a
dealer's license, the licensee or application shall--
``(1) lawfully remove from the District all destructive
devices in his inventory, or peaceably surrender to the Chief
all destructive devices in his inventory in the manner
provided in section 705; and
``(2) lawfully dispose, to himself or to another, any
firearms and ammunition in his inventory.''.
(H) Section 407(b) (sec. 7--2504.07(b), D.C. Official Code)
is amended by striking ``would not be eligible'' and all that
follows and inserting ``is prohibited from possessing or
receiving a firearm under Federal or District law.''.
(I) Section 502 (sec. 7--2505.02, D.C. Official Code) is
amended--
(i) by amending subsection (a) to read as follows:
``(a) Any person or organization not prohibited from
possessing or receiving a firearm under Federal or District
law may sell or otherwise transfer ammunition or any firearm,
except those which are prohibited under section 201, to a
licensed dealer.'';
(ii) by amending subsection (c) to read as follows:
``(c) Any licensed dealer may sell or otherwise transfer a
firearm to any person or organization not otherwise
prohibited from possessing or receiving such firearm under
Federal or District law.'';
(iii) in subsection (d), by striking paragraphs (2) and
(3); and
(iv) by striking subsection (e).
(J) Section 704 (sec. 7--2507.04, D.C. Official Code) is
amended--
(i) in subsection (a), by striking ``any registration
certificate or'' and inserting ``a''; and
(ii) in subsection (b), by striking ``registration
certificate,''.
(3) Other conforming amendments.--Section 2(4) of the
Illegal Firearm Sale and Distribution Strict Liability Act of
1992 (sec. 7--2531.01(2)(4), D.C. Official Code) is amended--
(A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``or ignoring proof of
the purchaser's residence in the District of Columbia''; and
(B) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``registration and''.
(d) Repeal Handgun Ammunition Ban.--
(1) Definition of restricted pistol bullet.--Section
101(13a) of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975
(sec. 7--2501.01(13a)) is amended to read as follows:
``(13a)(A) `Restricted pistol bullet' means--
``(i) a projectile or projectile core which may be used in
a handgun and which is constructed entirely (excluding the
presence of traces of other substances) from one or a
combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze,
beryllium copper, or depleted uranium; or
[[Page H2861]]
``(ii) a full-jacketed projectile larger than .22 caliber
designed and intended for use in a handgun and whose jacket
has a weight of more than 25 percent of the total weight of
the projectile.
``(B) The term `restricted pistol bullet' does not include
shotgun shot required by Federal or State environmental or
game regulations for hunting purposes, a frangible projectile
designed for target shooting, a projectile which the Attorney
General of the United States (pursuant to section 921(a)(17)
of title 18, United States Code) finds is primarily intended
to be used for sporting purposes, or any other projectile or
projectile core which the Attorney General finds is intended
to be used for industrial purposes, including a charge used
in an oil and gas well perforating device.''.
(2) Repeal of ban.--Section 601 of the Firearms Control
Regulations Act of 1975 (sec. 7-2506.01, D.C. Official Code)
is amended--
(A) by striking ``ammunition'' each place it appears (other
than paragraph (4)) and inserting ``restricted pistol
bullets''; and
(B) by striking paragraph (3) and redesignating paragraph
(4) as paragraph (3).
(e) Restore Right of Self Defense in the Home.--Section 702
of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 (sec. 7-
2507.02, D.C. Official Code) is repealed.
(f) Remove Criminal Penalties for Possession of
Unregistered Firearms.--
(1) In general.--Section 706 of the Firearms Control
Regulations Act of 1975 (sec. 7-2507.06, D.C. Official Code)
is amended--
(A) by striking ``that:'' and all that follows through
``(1) A'' and inserting ``that a''; and
(B) by striking paragraph (2).
(2) Effective date.--The amendments made by paragraph (1)
shall apply with respect to violations occurring after the
60-day period which begins on the date of the enactment of
this Act.
(g) Remove Criminal Penalties for Carrying a Firearm in
One's Dwelling or Other Premises.--
(1) In general.--Section 4(a) of the Act of July 8, 1932
(47 Stat. 651; sec. 22--4504(a), D.C. Official Code) is
amended--
(A) in the matter before paragraph (1), by striking ``a
pistol,'' and inserting the following: ``except in his
dwelling house or place of business or on other land
possessed by that person, whether loaded or unloaded, a
firearm,''; and
(B) by striking ``except that:'' and all that follows
through ``(2) If the violation'' and inserting ``except that
if the violation''.
(2) Treatment of certain exceptions.--Section 5(a) of such
Act (47 Stat. 651; sec. 22--4505(a), D.C. Official Code) is
amended--
(A) by striking ``pistol'' each place it appears and
inserting ``firearm''; and
(B) by striking the period at the end and inserting the
following: ``, or to any person while carrying or
transporting a firearm used in connection with an organized
military activity, a target shoot, formal or informal target
practice, sport shooting event, hunting, a firearms or hunter
safety class, trapping, or a dog obedience training class or
show, or the moving by a bona fide gun collector of part or
all of the collector's gun collection from place to place for
public or private exhibition while the person is engaged in,
on the way to, or returning from that activity if each
firearm is unloaded and carried in an enclosed case or an
enclosed holster, or to any person carrying or transporting a
firearm in compliance with sections 926A, 926B or 926C of
title 18, United States Code.''.
(3) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection
shall apply with respect to violations occurring after the
60-day period which begins on the date of the enactment of
this Act.
Mr. SMITH of Texas (during the reading). Madam Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that the motion be considered as read and printed in
the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I object.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk continued reading the motion to recommit.
Mr. CONYERS (during the reading). Madam Speaker, I withdraw any
objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the motion is considered
as read and printed in the Record.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5
minutes.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, the motion to recommit I have
offered contains a bipartisan proposal by Representatives Mike Ross and
Mark Souder, the District of Columbia Personal Protection Act.
My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have suggested today
that District of Columbia citizens have the right to vote in Congress.
If that is the case, then they must also agree that the citizens of the
District should have a constitutionally guaranteed right to possess
firearms.
Currently, D.C. citizens are prevented from owning any handgun at
all. Even those who lawfully own and store a rifle or shotgun are
prohibited from using them to defend themselves, their families or
their homes.
District law threatens honest people with imprisonment if they
unlock, assemble or load their guns even under attack. Although the
District has the most stringent gun control laws in the Nation, they
still suffer from one of the highest murder rates. Since January 1 of
this year alone, 35 people have been murdered in the District. Last
year over 150 people were murdered, and 2,000 suffered gun assaults.
This violence continues unabated, despite the strict gun control
laws. It is time to restore the rights of law-abiding citizens to
protect themselves and to defend their families.
On March 9, 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit struck down some, but not all, of the District of
Columbia's gun control laws as unconstitutional. The court agreed with
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, the Justice Department
and constitutional scholars, present and past, that the second
amendment protects the right of individuals to possess firearms. This
court decision, which will continue to wind its way through the
judicial system, compels Congress to act now to protect all second
amendment rights.
Mr. Speaker, the prohibition of firearms in the District of Columbia
is as ineffective as it is unconstitutional. It is high time we rectify
this wrong.
I urge my colleagues to support this measure.
Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Souder), who in the last Congress passed a piece of
legislation very similar to the motion to recommit that we consider
now.
Mr. SOUDER. I thank Mr. Smith for his leadership on this motion to
recommit and his long-standing leadership in the Judiciary Committee,
and for including the Personal Protection Act in our motion to
recommit.
This has been passed by the House in two different forms, in the
appropriations bill and as a free-standing bill. It is the first clear
gun control vote, and possibly the only one we will have this year. It
is a matter of whether you believe the District of Columbia should have
the second amendment.
We can dispute what the Constitution says in other areas, but clearly
the Constitution says that people have the right to own and bear arms
for self-protection. This legislation has been upheld now, in terms of
homes, by the D.C. District Court, but it is only a district court
ruling. This would codify it, make it clear that there are not second-
class citizens on this second amendment.
D.C., while it has had a decline in the homicide rate, it is less
than the rest of the country, it has led the country repeatedly. It is
five times the national average in murders, in spite of having the most
stringent gun control law that restricts the right to bear arms. Up
until the D.C. court ruling, for a gun in your home you had to have it
locked, disassembled, with a key in another location, without the
bullets in it. And when a criminal came into your house, you would have
to go find the key for the cabinet, put your gun together, go find a
bullet to protect yourself. This needs to be codified by Congress that
we passed multiple times.
The majority of Members of Congress are sponsors of this bill, and we
need to make sure that the District of Columbia residents have this
protection. There are many charges made, false charges, machine guns,
all this type of stuff. This is the same right that people throughout
America have that has been constitutionally upheld, and if we can pass
this law, we will once again make the citizens of the District of
Columbia have the same second amendment rights as the rest of America.
H.R. 1399, the District of Columbia Personal Protection Act
what would the legislation do?
H.R. 1399 would allow law-abiding citizens of the District
of Columbia (D.C.) to exercise their second amendment right
to own rifles, shotguns and handguns by repealing the current
draconian registration requirements and bans. More
specifically, it would: repeal the registration requirements
for firearms; eliminate criminal penalties for possession of
firearms; repeal the ban on semi-automatic firearms; repeal
the ban on the possession of ammunition; permit the storage
of
[[Page H2862]]
armed firearms in one's home or place of business; and
eliminate the criminal penalties for carrying a handgun in a
person's home or business.
H.R. 1399 would not affect any law directed at true
criminal conduct, and would leave in place strict penalties
for gun possession by criminals and for violent crime
committed with guns.
what are d.c.'s current gun laws?
Washington, D.C. has perhaps the most restrictive gun
control law in the United States. Yet, at the same time,
Justice Department figures show that the District is usually
``the murder capital'' of the country. It's no coincidence
that when law-abiding Americans are unable to defend
themselves and their families, violent crimes and murder will
increase. Here are some of the particulars of the current
D.C. law:
All handguns are banned unless they were owned and
registered in the District before 1977;
The citizens of the District--even the few remaining legal
handgun owners--are prohibited from even carrying their
handguns in their own homes;
All guns must be registered with the Metropolitan Police
Department;
Even rifles and shotguns that can be legally registered and
owned in the District, must be stored unloaded, and
disassembled or locked--rendering them useless for self-
defense--unless the gun is kept at a place of business.
Apparently the D.C. government thinks it's more important to
let people protect their business assets than to protect
their homes and families;
The D.C. Code absurdly defines many (if not most) semi-
automatic firearms as ``machine guns'' based on their
ammunition capacity, rather than on how they work. This
definition is totally inconsistent with federal law.
The ``District of Columbia Personal Protection Act'' would
fix each of these injustices and restore constitutional self-
defense rights to the law-abiding citizens of the District.
Under this bill, D.C. citizens would enjoy the same self-
defense rights as residents of the 50 states. The bill would
allow honest citizens to own rifles, shotguns and handguns,
without the current bureaucratic registration requirements.
And it would allow law-abiding people to use guns to protect
their homes and families.
The bill would not affect any law directed at true criminal
conduct, and would leave in place strict penalties for gun
possession by criminals and for violent crime committed with
guns.
has d.c.'s gun ban worked?
The ``gun control capital'' of the United States is
repeatedly also the violent crime and murder capital of the
nation--not coincidentally.
Prior to the enactment of the gun ban, the homicide rate in
D.C. had been declining, but it increased after the ban was
imposed in 1976. By 1991, D.C.'s homicide rate had risen more
than 200 percent. By comparison, the U.S. homicide rate rose
only 12 percent during the same period. As of 2002, D.C.'s
homicide rate is almost double the rate when its handgun ban
took effect. As of 2002, it is almost five times higher then
the national average. (Source: FBI, Metropolitan Police of
the District of Columbia).
According to Justice Department crime statistics, 2003 saw
D.C. once again earn its infamous distinction as murder
capital of America. It was the 15th time in 16 years that the
District has earned this dubious distinction. (Source: Bureau
of Justice Statistics).
A January 2004 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
(CDC) report found no conclusive evidence that gun control
laws help prevent violent crime, suicides or accidental
injuries in the United States. The national task force of
healthcare and community experts found ``insufficient
evidence'' that bans on specific guns, waiting periods for
gun buyers and other such laws changed the incidence of
murder, rape, suicide and other types of violence.
what's the constitutional justification for h.r. 1399?
On March 9, 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C.
Circuit overturned D.C.'s gun control law, ruling it
unconstitutional. The majority wrote (in a 2-1 decision):
``To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment
protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That
right existed prior to the formation of the new government
under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of
arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the
latter being understood as resistance to either private
lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government
(or a threat from abroad). In addition, the right to keep and
bear arms had the important and salutary civic purpose of
helping to preserve the citizen militia. The civic purpose
was also a political expedient for the Federalists in the
First Congress as it served, in part, to placate their Anti-
federalist opponents. The individual right facilitated
militia service by ensuring that citizens would not be barred
from keeping the arms they would need when called forth for
militia duty. Despite the importance of the Second
Amendment's civic purpose, however, the activities it
protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an
individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or
her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia.''
The U.S. Appeals Court also concluded that the current D.C.
law ``. . . amounts to a complete prohibition on the lawful
use of handguns for self-defense. As such, we hold it
unconstitutional.''
In addition, the Appeals Court rejected the argument that
the second amendment does not apply to D.C. because it is not
a state.
how does ``home rule'' fit into this?
Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution grants
Congress the power ``To exercise exclusive Legislation in all
Cases whatsoever'' over the District.
When Congress chose to delegate home rule to the District
in the 1970s, it specified that legislation by the District
must be ``consistent with the Constitution of the United
States'' and ``reserve[d] the right, at any time, to exercise
its constitutional authority as legislature for the District,
by enacting legislation for the District on any subject''.
(District of Columbia Self-Government and Governmental
Reorganization Act (P.L. 93-198), secs. 302 and 601.)
Numerous court cases have reaffirmed congressional authority
over the District.
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this motion to
recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. CONYERS. This is the most startling double hypocrisy I have ever
heard of on a bill of this magnitude. Very clever, whoever dreamed this
up. The motion to recommit would deny everyone in this House the right
to vote on whether citizens would gain the right to vote, and at the
same time arm them with military-type weaponry that is being used in
Iraq right now to destroy aircraft and bring down helicopters.
We would also repeal the District's strong ban on handgun ammunition
that can pierce body armor worn by police officers and other law
enforcement officials at a time when security has become a top priority
in the District, making military-style assault weapons readily
available.
Now, the most important person I have ever met in my life, with due
respect to all the great people I have had the honor of working with as
a Member of Congress, is Martin Luther King, Jr. If he is looking down
on us now to see if we are working for justice and peace in our
country, in our Capital and throughout the world, I am sure he would be
as dismayed as I am by putting a gun control vote up for a motion to
recommit.
Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia, Mr.
Davis.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Let me just say to my colleagues, I think
the gun ban in the District is ridiculous, and I would join with my
colleagues in overturning it. The problem is this motion doesn't do
that. Instead of bringing this motion back to the floor forthwith for a
vote up or down to continue this resolution and send it to the Senate
with the gun ban, it sends it back to the committee; is that correct,
Mr. Smith? It does not send it back to the floor, this sends it to
committee. So essentially this vote doesn't go anywhere. You can get
your vote on gun rights, but it kills the bill, and that is the
intention of this. And it is put there to put Members in a difficult
situation. If you want to get a vote on District voter rights, you have
to vote against this.
I would hope that we can have a free vote on the District gun ban
later on. The courts have overturned it. I don't think it is a good
law. But this doesn't overturn it because this kills the bill, and with
it kills the amendment.
I would urge my colleagues to reject it.
Mr. CONYERS. I thank the gentleman.
I now turn to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia, Eleanor
Holmes Norton, and recognize her at this time.
Ms. NORTON. I ask my colleagues not to be fooled. The House will give
you plenty of times to vote on guns in the District of Columbia. This
is not a motion to recommit, it is a motion to shoot the bill dead.
Most of the time you can vote for the motion to recommit and still
save the bill. Not true here. If you vote for the motion to recommit,
you will kill this bill. Please do not do it.
This matter is in the courts. No matter what we do here, it is a
nullity because it is now in the Federal courts, and it is in the
Federal courts, on a constitutional question, and that will rule the
day.
These people are trying to kill voting rights for the District of
Columbia.
[[Page H2863]]
They have prevailed on guns here before, they will do it again. Those
of you who are for guns and for voting rights for the District of
Columbia, vote against the motion to recommit or else you are voting
against voting rights for the residents of the District of Columbia.
{time} 1415
Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 2 of House Resolution
260, further proceedings on the bill will be postponed.
____________________