Congressional Record, Volume 153 Issue 63 (Thursday, April 19, 2007)

[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 63 (Thursday, April 19, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H3577-H3593]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HOUSE VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 2007

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 317, I call up
the bill (H.R. 1905) 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 text of the bill is as follows:

H.R. 1905

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``District of Columbia House
Voting Rights Act of 2007''.

SEC. 2. TREATMENT OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AS CONGRESSIONAL
DISTRICT.

(a) In General.--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.
(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);''.

SEC. 3. 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 2(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 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

[[Page H3578]]

Tenth Congress, the One Hundred Eleventh Congress, and the
One Hundred Twelfth Congress--
(A) notwithstanding the final undesignated paragraph of 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.

SEC. 4. 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. Pursuant to House Resolution 317, the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Smith) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.

General Leave

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks
on H.R. 1905, the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2007.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Michigan?
There was no objection.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin the debate on this
measure by yielding myself as much time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, this past Monday on April 16, Emancipation Day, District
of Columbia residents and others gathered by the thousands at Freedom
Plaza and marched to the Capitol, calling on Congress to ``demand the
vote.''
On that day in 1862, President Abraham Lincoln signed the District of
Columbia Compensated Emancipation Act, freeing approximately 3,100 men,
women and children who were held in bondage. That was several months
before, of course, President Lincoln's issue of the Emancipation
Proclamation on New Year's Day, 1863.
I stand before my colleagues in the House today and cannot help but
note that the District of Columbia was the starting point for the
Emancipation President, as he was called, but it still does not have
the full voting franchise that is at the heart of U.S. citizenship.
This hardly seems right, and we have come today, assembled again to
correct this.
Monday's marchers sent a message to Congress: District residents have
had enough of ``taxation without representation.'' That is a message
that all Americans and all students of American history should
understand. District residents just want what Americans elsewhere
enjoy: a full share in American democracy.
This simple but compelling message has reached Congress, and today we
are acting on it. Today we will do our part to correct a 200-year-old
injustice. We have a constitutionally sound, bipartisan, politically
balanced response that will give, at last, citizens of the District of
Columbia full representation in the House.
The United States is the only democracy in the world, ladies and
gentlemen, where citizens living in the capital city are denied
representation in their legislature. Almost 600,000 people who call the
District of Columbia home, who pay taxes, go off to war, and observe
the other responsibilities of citizenship still do not have a vote in
the Congress.
At Monday's march, we heard from a District of Columbia veteran who
was one of the first soldiers sent to Iraq in March, 2003, and as a
dual citizen of the United States and Iraq, he can participate fully in
the Iraqi democratic process which includes electing voting members of
the Iraqi National Legislature, but as a resident of the District of
Columbia, his rights as a U.S. citizen are limited.
Well, his day has come, as well as for that of all of the citizens of
this great District of Columbia. I hope that we can move this debate
through as efficiently and as effectively as possible, and move toward
a finish of a job that we have undertaken in more than one Congress.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, last month the House considered a similar piece of
legislation. As has become the Democrats' antidemocratic custom, no
amendments were allowed. The language of the bill was changed hours
before it came to the House floor, and Republicans were allowed only a
motion to recommit.
Today, we are back again to consider legislation to
unconstitutionally give D.C. residents a voting representative in
Congress. Since the wording of the legislation has been changed without
approval by the committee of jurisdiction, we will not have an
opportunity to give D.C. residents the right to possess weapons to
protect themselves and their families. And the reason we cannot give
them that right is the same reason the bill was withdrawn last month:
The Democratic leadership is afraid Congress would approve it.
It is a shame that a bill that supposedly supports democracy is being
brought up in such an undemocratic manner. The majority waived its own
rules and will pass a separate tax increase, all to ram through the
House an unconstitutional bill they rewrote at the 11th hour with no
amendments allowed.
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.''
This legislation was constitutionally suspect last month and it is
constitutionally suspect today. The Constitution explicitly says that
Members of Congress can only be elected by people who live in States.
Article I section 2 reads, ``The House of Representatives shall be
composed of Members chosen every second year by the people of the
several States.''
Judges and legal experts agree that since D.C. is not a State, it
cannot elect Members of Congress. In fact, a Federal district judge
here in D.C. already has spoken on this point stating clearly, ``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.''
And the House Judiciary Committee also has spoken on this point. When
the House Judiciary Committee under the leadership of Democratic
Chairman Peter Rodino in the 95th Congress reported out a
constitutional amendment to do what this bill purports to be able to do
by statute, the report stated, ``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.'' So what is
being attempted with the legislation before us today is something long
recognized as requiring a constitutional amendment.
Further, this bill unfairly subjects many citizens to unequal
treatment. It grants Utah an additional Representative who will run at-
large or statewide rather than in the individual district provided for
in the redistricting plan the Utah legislature passed last year. 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 own 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 would have more voting power than the voters of every other
State.
The new bill the majority drafted at the 11th hour even fails to
strike the current position of the Delegate that represents Washington,
D.C. Currently, that delegate can vote in committee. So this bill not
only grants voters in Utah two voting Members when every other voter
only gets one, but also gives District voters two votes in committee,
one vote for the D.C. Delegate and one vote for the new D.C. Member of
Congress. Congratulations to Utah and D.C. voters.
Some feel sincerely that the Constitution can be pulled and stretched
a

[[Page H3579]]

little and interpreted otherwise, but at least we can agree that it is
by no means certain that the bill is constitutional. What is certain is
that congressional voting for D.C. residents could be obtained by a
constitutional amendment.
In 1978, Congress approved such a constitutional amendment, but only
16 of the 38 States necessary ratified it. As I mentioned, at the time
the Democratic chairman of the Judiciary Committee said the only
legitimate way to give D.C. residents the right to vote in Federal
elections was a constitutional amendment as opposed to this kind of
legislation.
Why is that process being ignored now? Is it because of the fear of
failure again?
Like many Members of Congress, I favor giving D.C. residents the
right to vote for Members of the House and the Senate; but this bill
doesn't do that. It limits D.C. residents to voting only for House
Members. This bill does not allow D.C. residents to vote for Senators.
Why are we considering a bill that gives D.C. residents only half their
rights? Isn't that ``taxation without representation''? Or maybe it is
``taxation with half-representation.'' Maybe we should refund D.C.
residents half their taxes if this bill passes.
There is a solution, and it treats the residents of D.C. better than
this bill. It is constitutional. It is more likely to succeed in a
constitutional amendment, and it will give D.C. residents the right to
vote for both House Members and Senators.
D.C. was originally carved out of Maryland. If D.C. were given back
to Maryland, except for the Capitol and some Federal buildings, D.C.
residents would be residents of a State and have the same voting
rights. It has been done before. That part of D.C. that was once part
of Virginia was returned to Virginia in 1846, so the precedent is
there. Such legislation would only require a majority vote in Congress
and in the Maryland legislature. Both are controlled by the Democratic
Party.
Why are we waiting? Why not the best for D.C. residents? Why are we
spending time on a bill that is constitutionally suspect and would be
challenged in court? Why are we not acting now to return the District
to Maryland and assure D.C. residents the right to vote in all Federal
elections as quickly as possible?
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure now to yield 1 minute to
the distinguished Speaker of the House of Representatives, Ms. Nancy
Pelosi.
Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for yielding me time and for his
leadership in bringing this legislation to the floor.
Mr. Speaker, today is a proud day for this House and for the District
of Columbia and for our Nation. Today, we will fulfill our obligation
to do right by the citizens of the District of Columbia.
Mr. Speaker, I commend the steadfast leadership, the exceptional
tenacity, the relentless persistence of the gentlewoman from the
District of Columbia (Ms. Norton). Because of her today, America will
be greater.
I also appreciate the leadership of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Tom Davis) making this bill one that has bipartisan cosponsorship.
Again, without his participation, we wouldn't be here. For his support
over a long period of time, we are all in your debt, Mr. Davis.

{time} 1245

I want to thank also Mr. Conyers and Mr. Waxman for their leadership;
Steny Hoyer, who has made this a mission in his life. It is a proud day
for all of us.
Mr. Speaker, I take some personal pleasure in today's proceedings,
because when I was born, my father was a Member of Congress. He was on
the Appropriations Committee and he chaired the District of Columbia
committee. At that time there was no mayor, there was no home rule. He
was a strong supporter for the District to attain both. He would never
have imagined all those many, many years ago that it would take this
long to get a full vote on the floor for the District of Columbia.
And of course we would like, Mr. Chairman, to have statehood for the
District of Columbia so they could have full representation for their
taxation. But today we take this giant step.
This bipartisan effort to secure full voting representation in this
House should command the support of all. Indeed, 82 percent of the
American people support the District of Columbia having full voting
rights on the floor of the House. This vote fulfills the promise of our
democracy. It reflects what we stand for at home and preach around the
world.
As the Supreme Court has said: ``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 we, as good citizens, must live.''
Today, we seek to affirm an enduring principle of our democracy, the
right to be heard and represented fully. For more than 200 years, the
citizens of the District of Columbia have been denied full voting
representation. This legislation corrects a serious flaw in our
democracy.
Mr. Speaker, every single day that this Congress is in session, we
take a pledge to the flag and to the Republic for which it stands. And
at the end we say, ``with liberty and justice for all.'' That ``for
all'' must include the people of the District of Columbia.
America is at its best and honors the cause of justice and freedom
when all voices are fully represented. And we know that the citizens of
the District of Columbia will give their voices to a vision of justice,
equality and opportunity for all. They have already had the voice. Now
they will have the vote.
Now is the time to honor our democracy. We will not rest until full
voting representation in the House is granted to the District of
Columbia. That is our obligation and our pledge.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to my
friend and colleague from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) who is the ranking
member of the House Agriculture Committee and also a senior member of
the Judiciary Committee.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized
for such time as he may consume.
Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentleman for yielding and it is at this
time my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia, Mr.
Davis.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I would ask if the gentleman
from Michigan could yield me 2 minutes as well.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to add 2 minutes on to Mr.
Davis' allotted time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 4 minutes.
(Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Taxation Without Representation, the
phrase that sparked this Nation's revolution of independence, still
fuels the aspirations of District residents, especially this week when
they paid taxes to a Federal Government in which they are not fully
represented.
So this House once again considers a bill to correct this historical
anomaly that leaves those living closest to the seat of our democracy
without the same rights as their fellow citizens living everywhere else
in our vast Nation. We persist because the cause is right and patience
a vice against long-festering injustice.
Today, there is no need to repeat everything said 3 weeks ago. The
history, the case law, the constitutional analysis have all been
recited. We have heard from the opponents of this legislation who rely
on a single argument championed by one very liberal constitutional
lawyer.
We counter with the studied opinions of two former Federal judges,
including Judge Kenneth Starr, and 25 legal scholars from the best law
schools in the country, including Viet Dinh, who the Bush
administration relied on to write the PATRIOT Act. Anyone who would
have been moved by those arguments has already been persuaded.
Instead, I want to focus on the moral imperative to act, even in the
face of difficulty or doubt. A great man of letters once said:
``Nothing will ever be attempted if all possible objections must first
be overcome.'' There will always be an excuse not to try. Refute one
opposing argument, another sprouts like a weed. In this case, the
scales of justice cannot be moved with weightless legal theories. The
balance is tipped decidedly by the solid facts

[[Page H3580]]

and heavy effects of disenfranchisement endured every day by those who
live in the Nation's Capital.
The people of the District of Columbia have served in every war this
country has fought. Think about that for a second. These Americans
bravely risked their lives, not to defend the freedoms they had, but to
protect the promise of freedoms they hoped to have restored. They
dutifully pay many millions of dollars in Federal taxes year in and
year out, with absolutely no say in how that money may be spent.
But these are the obvious sacrifices of living in the Federal City.
The small daily contributions of this city's citizens should not be
overlooked. District residents truly serve this Nation every day
performing thousands of Federal jobs. But when this House votes on the
shape, the size and the cost of that government, they are invisible,
unseen and unheard in debates that affect their lives more directly
than most.
As a Republican, I am not willing to bear the shame of failing to try
to resolve this matter after 200 years. According to our party's own
Web site, ``The Republican Party was organized as an answer to the
divided politics, political turmoil, argument and internal divisions,
particularly over slavery, which plagued many political parties in
1854.'' Our first Presidential candidate, John C. Fremont, ran under a
slogan: ``Free soil, free labor, free speech, free men, Fremont.''
We exist as a party to increase representation and liberty in this
country and in this world. This legislation is in the highest
traditions of this party that fought for free speech, fought to abolish
slavery, and fought to give women the right to vote.
So I ask my Republican colleagues to see through the fog of armchair
constitutional analysis and do the right thing. There is still time to
cast a Republican vote, a vote to preserve our party's heritage and to
vote to expand liberty.
Opponents of this legislation will apologize that the Constitution
won't allow them to do the good they wish they could do. I am sorry,
but I can't accept that. At the end of the day, this is not an argument
about what Congress can do. It is about what Congress is willing to do.
Those of us who are supporting this bill are not nervous about its
constitutionality. We are convinced that this Congress already has the
authority we need to expand freedom and liberty in this Nation. Might
we be wrong? Possibly. The Supreme Court has never decided a case like
this. But even if we are proven wrong, there is nobility in attempting
to do the right thing. There is honor in acting, not just talking, to
end injustice.
To those still shackled by doubt, I offer the words of Reverend King:
``Take the first step in faith. You don't have to see the whole
staircase. Just take the first step.'' Take that step with me and pass
this bill.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to turn now to the chairman of
the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Jerry Nadler of New York, and
recognize him for 3 minutes.
Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, it is a stain on our national honor that the
citizens of our Capital City are disenfranchised without any votes in
Congress. We presume to lecture other nations on the importance of
democracy; but today we are being put to our own test, and we must not
fail.
Now, speakers on the other side say that this bill is
unconstitutional. They say, and they point out correctly, that the
Constitution says that the House of Representatives shall be composed
of Members chosen every second year by the people of the several
States. Washington, they say, isn't a State. QED. That's the end of the
subject. But no, it isn't. It is not the end of the subject. The fact
is, article III, section 2 says the judicial power, Federal
jurisdiction shall extend to controversies between citizens of
different States. Controversies between citizens of different States,
that is the basis for jurisdiction for Federal lawsuits, some Federal
lawsuits, many Federal lawsuits.
Well, what about a controversy when someone from the District of
Columbia sues someone from Virginia or New York or Pennsylvania? Well,
in 1805, the Supreme Court ruled that diversity jurisdiction did not
exist between a citizen of the District of Columbia and a citizen of
Virginia, in the case of Hepburn v. Ellzey, because the District of
Columbia was not a State.
But the Court also said that Congress, under its power to legislate
for the District of Columbia, could decide that, for purposes of
diversity jurisdiction, the city of Washington, D.C. should be
considered a State. Congress took its time in doing so, but did make
that decision.
And there was a Supreme Court decision in 1949, a mere 145 years
later. These things don't go that rapidly. 1949, in National Mutual
Insurance Company of the District of Columbia v. Tidewater, the United
States Supreme Court said, aha, Congress, having acted, the District of
Columbia is a State for purposes of diversity jurisdiction under
article III of the Constitution.
Congress has as much power to decide that the residents of the
District of Columbia have the right to vote for Congress, which
requires States, as Congress has the right to decide, upheld by the
Supreme Court, that residents of the District of Columbia, have the
right to sue citizens of other States. If the Congress has that power
for purposes of giving the District of Columbia residents the right to
sue and be sued by citizens of other States in Federal courts for
diversity jurisdiction, it has the same power, the exact same
constitutional power to decide that, for purposes of representation in
Congress, citizens of the District of Columbia may have that
representation in Congress.
So it is, I think, clear, but certainly very arguable, that Congress
has ample power constitutionally. And if someone wants to challenge
them, let them go to court. But it is not a valid argument to oppose
this bill which is necessary for elementary democracy in this country.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.
I rise in opposition to H.R. 1905, the District of Columbia House
Voting Rights Act. There is no doubt that citizens of the District of
Columbia have no 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 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.
We amended the United States Constitution for that purpose. If the
advocates of this seek to do the same for representation in the House,
they need to amend the United States Constitution.
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
Representative from their district, and once for another Representative
at large. This would clearly violate the constitutional principle of
one-man, one-vote by granting Utah citizens disproportionately large
voting power.
Adding insult to injury, this new bill we have before us today does
not include the language from the previous bill, H.R. 1433, to
eliminate the position of D.C. Delegate. Under this new

[[Page H3581]]

bill, it appears that the District of Columbia would not only
unconstitutionally be granted the same voting rights that State
residents enjoy, but it would give D.C. greater representation than any
State currently enjoys. The D.C. Delegate would continue to be eligible
to vote in committee, and in the Committee of the Whole; and in
addition, the new D.C. Representative would also be eligible to vote in
committee and on the floor.

{time} 1300

While every other district would get one vote in committee and on the
floor, the District of Columbia would get two votes in committee and
two votes on the floor under this new language.
Finally, the procedure for bringing this bill to the floor is, again,
appalling. Debate has been blocked on a bill that affects the relative
voting power of citizens in each of our congressional districts. The
majority has once again denied us even the opportunity to discuss
amendments, including an amendment by Ranking Member Smith to simply
provide for an expedited judicial review of the bill after it is
enacted in order to determine its constitutionality.
Furthermore, it is very telling and disappointing that the majority
has decided that it would rather violate its own PAYGO rules than allow
an open and fair discussion on the underlying bill.
For all of these reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose this very
poorly crafted legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the distinguished
gentleman from Alabama, I yield myself 30 seconds.
Ladies and gentlemen, we have here a very interesting constitutional
question. My good friend and distinguished member of the Judiciary
Committee I think has raised four, maybe five points that disturb him
greatly, but the main one is that it is unconstitutional. The point of
the matter is that there are those who think it is constitutional and
those who think it is unconstitutional. Can't we let the courts decide
this besides 435 great lawyers working on this?
Mr. Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman
from Alabama, Mr. Artur Davis.
Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished Chair of
the committee for honoring me by giving me a chance to speak during
this momentous debate.
And I want to begin with a simple observation. If you scour the globe
and you look at the places that are listed as democracies, the places
where the consent of the governed is what drives the politics, there is
not a single one where the people who live in the capital do not have a
representative to their parliamentary body. No, not one. That is
telling, and it ought to frame everything that we say here today
because the system of government in this country and the way we have
gone about business until now has been unique in the world. This is the
only place in the world where the people who live in the capital have
no voice.
Now, let me speak to some of the constitutional arguments that have
been raised. I find it very telling, Mr. Speaker, that many of my very
able colleagues on the other side of the aisle have spent a lot of time
in their recommit motion and other places, making a point about the
recent D.C. Circuit ruling about the right to bear arms. They have
brought that unrelated issue into this debate.
But it is interesting for this reason, and I take out this dog-eared
copy of the Constitution. If there is one document that ought to be
well worn, I suppose it is the Constitution.
If you look at the second amendment, Mr. Speaker and Mr. Chairman,
that our opponents in this debate rely on, it says ``A well regulated
militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of
the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,'' a clear-cut
reference to the security of a free State.
Our friends on the other side of the aisle say that is relevant to
Washington, D.C. They say there is a right to bear arms that the people
shall enjoy. If it is so in the context of someone carrying around a 9
millimeter or a semiautomatic, it must be so in the context of people
walking into a ballot and voting for a delegate who is a representative
who has a voice here.
What kind of a system of government says that the right to have a 9
millimeter outweighs the right to vote? You can't have it both ways in
this argument. You can't say you throw out the State in the second
amendment, but somehow you make the State giant and bold and
capitalized and italicized in the context of this representation.
Another point that Mr. Nadler touched upon: We hear from the
opposition that D.C. is a special thing, a Federal district, that it is
neither the United States nor the States so, therefore, it belongs in
its own special category. If that is the case, to my friends on the
other side, take out your copy of the Constitution, plow your way
through it, and look at amendment after amendment. If that
interpretation is so, that D.C. is not a State or the U.S. Government,
it means the equal protection clause doesn't apply to Washington, D.C.
It means that the antipoll tax provision doesn't apply to Washington,
D.C. It means that every other provision of the Constitution that
contains the word ``State'' or ``U.S.'' does not apply.
No one makes that argument that the people of Washington, D.C. are
utterly shorn of rights because they are neither a State nor the United
States. If you don't make it in another context, you cannot make it in
this one.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond to
the gentleman from Alabama.
The second amendment to the Constitution refers to the ``State.''
When the Constitution refers to the ``States,'' meaning today 50
States, then 13 States, it is referring to them in the plural. The
``State'' in the second amendment refers to the country collectively.
And to the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee, for
whom I have great respect but also great disagreement on this issue, I
hope that given the fact that we do acknowledge a difference of opinion
on what the Constitution says means that he will join with us in
seeking for expedited judicial review if, as I hope is not the case,
this should be passed and sent to the courts for their review.
Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, before I begin to set forth
my opposition to this piece of legislation, let me refer back to the
comments made by the previous speaker, which looked back over 150 years
to try to find a case to provide some substantiation for their
argument, and they did so by finding a case with regard to judicial
intervention.
In that case they cited that the Supreme Court held that this
Congress could allow or broaden the judicial authority, if you will, of
the Federal courts. I think their example, in essence, proves too much.
You cannot simply take one sentence or two sentences out of the U.S.
Constitution and draw a conclusion from that. What you have to do is
read the entirety of the Constitution.
If you had done that, you would realize that the courts have always
held, and the Founders' intent always was, that this body, this House,
and this Congress has broad latitude when it comes to judicial issues
and reining in the Federal courts or expanding their authority of
jurisdiction. And that is all that that Supreme Court case was doing.
It was not addressing the issue of infringing upon the rights of other
citizens by what is occurring here today by granting more authority to
other States as far as voting is concerned.
More to the point on this legislation. As I said before, I rise in
strong opposition to this legislation because it is, A,
unconstitutional, and, B, unfair. It violates the Constitution and the
very fundamental intent of the Founding Fathers of this country and the
Framers of the Constitution. It would give the District, which is by no
definition a State, a vote in this House and simultaneously the
citizens of another State two Representatives, which is unfair to the
State of New Jersey and all States in this country.
Furthermore, by allowing, unfairly, the District of Columbia to have
their

[[Page H3582]]

own Representative and also a Delegate, they will have unfair
representation.
Our Founding Fathers understood and deliberately set aside a non-
State section of land for our Federal Government and granted voting
rights only, only, to State residents. They did this for a simple
reason: They wanted to ensure that each State had equal representation,
and they realized that putting the Federal Government in a State would
have given that State unfair representation, an unfair advantage. H.R.
1905 does not line up with the Founders' intent.
If the supporters of H.R. 1905 wanted the people of D.C. to be
represented in Congress, they simply could have solved that problem by
retroceding, by giving back part of the District of Columbia to
Maryland.
There is precedent for this, as stated. In 1846, Congress took that
perfectly legal step of returning present-day Arlington to the State of
Virginia. Couldn't we pass similar legislation like that right now and
solve this problem?
Unfortunately, the majority, who claimed just a few months ago that
they would have an open process for amendment legislation, has left us
with only two choices, an unfair and unconstitutional choice before
this House.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, we are pleased to have on our Judiciary
Committee the gentleman from Georgia, the distinguished lawyer and
judge, Hank Johnson, to whom I yield 2 minutes.
Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the
District of Columbia Voting Rights Act of 2007, which corrects a 200-
year-old oversight by restoring to the citizens of the District of
Columbia the right to elect a Member of the House of Representatives
who has the same voting rights as all other Members of the House of
Representatives.
Residents of the District of Columbia serve in the military. They are
dying and being wounded on the streets of Iraq. They pay billions of
dollars in Federal taxes each year and assume all of the
responsibilities of United States citizenship. Yet they are denied the
basic right of full representation in the United States House of
Representatives.
Now, a compromise has been reached by both sides of the aisle, but
there are some who would deny the people of Washington, D.C., a right
that they themselves enjoy.
The District of Columbia was created to prevent any State from unduly
influencing the operations of the Federal Government due to the Federal
Government's being located within the confines of a particular State.
However, there is simply no evidence that the Framers of the
Constitution thought it was necessary to keep residents of this
District from being represented in the United States House of
Representatives by a voting Member.
Now, there are those who would argue that Congress lacks the power to
extend this right of full voter representation to the citizens of the
District of Columbia. However, article I, section 8, clause 17 of the
Constitution provides Congress with the legislative authority to give
the District of Columbia true representation in Congress. I quote: The
Congress shall have power ``to exercise exclusive Legislation in all
Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding 10 miles square) .
. .''
So let us stand with the thousands who marched down Pennsylvania
Avenue Monday for one thing, full representation by Members of the
House of Representatives for the District of Columbia.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Gohmert), a member of the Judiciary Committee.
Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, the proponents of this bill in 1978
believed that the way to allow the District of Columbia representation
was to actually pass and ratify a constitutional amendment. That is
what the proponents knew back then. That is what most of us, hopefully,
still know today.
Article I, section 2 of the Constitution addresses who will comprise
the U.S. House of Representatives. As it says here, specifically, ``The
House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every
second year by the People of the several States . . . ''
Now, anyone who believes it is fair, like the Founders of the country
did, to have taxation with representation should also know that we took
an oath to support and defend this document. Words mean things. They
had the debate at that time. Should we give the District of Columbia,
this independent entity, a Representative? They said ``no.'' Alexander
Hamilton lost the debate when they said ``no.''
So if you want to fix it, as the people in 1978 did, as you do know,
those in the House here, Mr. Speaker, you do it by making a
constitutional amendment.
I have previously pointed out that one of the arguments made by our
country's founders as to why they did not allow the District of
Columbia to have a U.S. Representative was that the Founders noted that
Members of Congress and the Senate have an interest in the city's
functioning properly. Demonizing, misquoting, belittling the messenger
does not change the truth, the facts, or what the Constitution
requires.

{time} 1315

As I said during the previous debate, it is a legitimate position to
assert that all people should be able to elect their Representative.
That is why on Monday of this week I filed a bill that is the only
constitutional manner of getting the District of Columbia a
Representative without a constitutional amendment. My new bill cedes
land from the District of Columbia on which Federal buildings do not
currently exist to the State of Maryland, which follows the pattern
that was set in 1846 when land was ceded back to Virginia. That allows
the District of Columbia not only a vote for a Representative, but also
a vote for two Senators. That is not even contemplated in this bill.
In any event, the Constitution is clear. Let's follow it or amend it.
The bill we are voting on today does not follow the Constitution, it
does not amend the Constitution, and, therefore, it must be defeated
here by those who wish to follow the admonition to support and defend
the Constitution. Otherwise, it will be struck down by any court that
seeks to follow the words of the Constitution.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 1 minute to the
Delegate from the District of Columbia, Eleanor Holmes Norton.
Ms. NORTON. It has been remarkable, in a debate where Republicans
invoke democracy, to hear Republican after Republican come to the House
floor and say that they want the District of Columbia ceded to
Maryland, without indicating that the Maryland delegation has given
permission to accept the District of Columbia. If you believe in
democracy, I suggest you ask the State of Maryland before you cede back
anything to that State.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure now to yield 3 minutes to
the gentlelady from Houston, Texas, Sheila Jackson-Lee.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Let me thank the distinguished Speaker, the
distinguished chairman of the full committee, and certainly my
colleagues who are here, because I believe that there should be a sense
of honesty and integrity that is attributed to all of my colleagues,
despite their positions on this issue.
I rise today, Mr. Chairman of the full committee, acknowledging that
my full statement will be put into the Record. But I really want to
engage in a dialogue and a discussion because I am grateful that this
committee, looking at Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton's legislation
and Congressman Davis' legislation was thoughtful as it relates to the
Constitution. And that is what the American people ask us to do: they
want us to be thoughtful as it relates to the Constitution; they want
us to be fair.
Many people have heard of this as the D.C. Voting bill, but they may
not be aware of the provision that deals with Utah, people there who
have not had an opportunity to cast their vote, one person-one vote.
That is what this is all about. It is a simple question of allowing
those who pay taxes, whose blood rains on the front lines around the
world for our freedom, to have the constitutional privilege of voting.
Now, you will hear those who oppose suggest that there is a provision
in the Constitution that indicates the word ``States,'' and that voting
is, if you will, attributable to the word ``States.''

[[Page H3583]]

We have already heard the historical perspective, you have already been
told to ask the people of Maryland, but there is another constitutional
provision. And so you have interpretations that will allow scholars to
have a scholarly debate.
The other constitutional provision indicates that this Congress does
have the authority to provide, if you will, a balance of power, a sense
of fairness to the nonvoting people of the District of Columbia.
I would hope that we, who are constitutionally grounded, a democracy
that has lasted now 400 years-plus, would err on the side of giving
rights to people who are deserving of those rights, their birthright
being that they are American citizens. That is why I come to the floor
of the House to challenge and to chime these words: We all are created
equal, with certain inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit
of happiness. That is a declaration of independence, and the
Constitution says we formed this body to create a more perfect Union.
Can we be in a perfect Union if there are citizens of the United States
who are not able to cast their vote? I ask my colleagues to consider
that, and I ask us to support enthusiastically H.R. 1905, to err on the
side of the birthright of American citizens and the right to vote.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1905, 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. Today, we vote to
end 2 centuries of shame and correct an injustice to the citizens of
the District of Columbia.
H.R. 1905 permanently expands 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. 1905 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. 1905 is a weak
foundation upon which to base the District's voting rights in the House
because it is a statutory rather than 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.
Mr. 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.
Mr. 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.
Mr. 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.
Mr. 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.

I. Congress Can Grant Voting Rights to the District Under the District
Clause

As Professor Dinh argued in his powerful testimony before the
Judiciary Committee, Congress has ample constitutional authority to
enact H.R. 1905 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 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 legislatipn, take the more modest step of providing
citizens of the District with a voice in the House of Representativ.
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.

[[Page H3584]]

II. Congress May Direct the Next-Entitled State to Elect Its Additional
Representative at Large

H.R. 1905 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 9 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 State-wide
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 state-wide
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 4
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. 1905 is constitutionally
unassailable. Granting voting rights to the citizens of the District of
Columbia is a matter of simple justice. I know it 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 vote to join me in voting
for H.R. 1905.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is
remaining on each side.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Both sides have 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. GOODLATTE. At this time, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Gohmert).
Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I need to respond to my friend from the
District of Columbia with regard to have I talked to the State of
Maryland. All I can do is what we can do here, what we can do
constitutionally. And I am shocked at the inference that Maryland
thinks so little of the people of the District of Columbia that they
wouldn't want them, but that is their call. This is something we can do
constitutionally.
And to my other good friend from Texas, who mentioned there is
another provision, it is article I, section 8. And there is nothing in
here that gives us the power to change the Constitution to revoke this
word ``States.'' And if you give it that broad, sweeping definition
that my friends across the aisle are trying to do, then what will end
up happening is, you want to help the fighting people that have given
their lives for us and others who continue fighting? This says we can
give them their own representative. We can give the Pentagon a
representative. We can give every fort and post and base in America
their own representative. Let's don't go that broad.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to recognize a senior
member of the Judiciary Committee, Maxine Waters of California, for 2
minutes.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker and Members, I rise in support of H.R. 1905,
the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2007, and I am
proud and pleased to do so.
I was elected in 1991; and one of my colleagues, who was elected at
the same time, Ms. Eleanor Holmes Norton, she has been in this battle
ever since she has been here trying to educate this House and the
Members of this Congress about the disenfranchisement of the people of
the District of Columbia, and she has done a magnificent job of doing
that.
That brings us to the point that we are today. We have worked out an
agreement. We have bipartisan support. We have a piece of legislation
that makes good sense. It will give representation to the people who
live and work in this District, people who pay taxes.
When I rode in this morning, I rode in a taxicab with an elderly
woman who has been driving a cab for 28 years. I struck up a
conversation with her, and she told me that she had two sons in Iraq. I
could not tell her about what we were doing on the floor today. I did
not want to engage her in that conversation because I was too ashamed
to even talk about the fact that she did not have representation, she
did not have a voting representative because this body had not decided
to use its power to give the vote to the people of the District of
Columbia. But I am proud to stand here today because I think something
wonderful is about to happen.
No matter the distortions about the Constitution, no matter the
misunderstanding that I am hearing from the opposite side of the aisle,
we are about to embark on something that is historical, that is
constitutional, and is the right thing to do. And I am so pleased and
proud to be a part of it as I stand here, looking in the eyes of my
friend, Eleanor Holmes Norton, where I will be casting my vote with her
today to give voting rights to the people of this District.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Pence).
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, did the gentleman from Indiana desire 2
minutes from our side?
Mr. PENCE. No. I thank the gentleman. I am pleased to take time from
the minority side. I thank the chairman. But I also thank very deeply
the gentleman from Virginia the courtesy of yielding me time.
(Mr. PENCE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I do rise in support of H.R. 1905, the
District of Columbia Voting Rights Act of 2007.
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.
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 commitment 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
our

[[Page H3585]]

system of government, Congress may only take action which is authorized
by the written Constitution. I do believe in my heart that H.R. 1905 is
a constitutional remedy to a historic wrong, and I am not alone in this
thought.
Judge Kenneth Starr, the 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 that they founded.'' None other than
Justice Antonin Scalia observed in 1984 that the seat of government
clause of the Constitution gives Congress extraordinary and plenary
power over our Nation's Capital. Judge Starr observes: ``The logic of
that case and that reasoning applies here.''
Congress has used this power in the past. It was in a 1949 case that
the Supreme Court upheld legislation that extended access to the
Federal courts even though article III expressly limited jurisdiction
to the courts to suits brought by citizens of several States. None of
which argues for the District of Columbia ever to be granted the right
to elect Members to the Senate. In a real sense, the House is
derivative of the people, the Senate is derivative of the State.
It is my privilege to stand today, albeit in opposition to some of my
most cherished colleagues, and stand in support of the D.C. Voting
Rights bill.
Mr. CONYERS. I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Cummings).
Mr. CUMMINGS. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that I wholeheartedly support H.R.
1905, the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act.
I echo the words of Mr. Pence, who just spoke. I think he said it
quite precisely and concisely, the citizens of the District of Columbia
deserve a full right to vote. This bill does not go as far as I would
like for it to go; but at the same time, it is a step in the right
direction.
I applaud my colleague, Eleanor Holmes Norton, for tirelessly giving
everything she has to make this happen. So this is a great day for her
and a great day for our country and our Congress.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1905, the District of
Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2007, because the time is long past
due for District of Columbia residents to gain the right to vote.
It is very fitting that we are considering giving D.C. residents the
right to vote this week. April 15th marked the 60th anniversary of
Jackie Robinson's debut with the Brooklyn Dodgers as the first African-
American player in the Majors, and on Monday, D.C. residents celebrated
Emancipation Day. In keeping with this line of great accomplishments,
today we have the honor, the privilege, and the duty to correct one of
this Nation's oldest violations of civil rights.
District residents have been denied full representation in Congress
for over 200 years. This disenfranchisement impacts more than 500,000
people who live in the District, pay federal taxes, and fight for their
country in war. Further, it disproportionately impacts the African
American community, which makes up fifty-seven percent of the
population in the District. No other state in the union has a larger
percentage of Black residents.
However, this is an issue that surpasses race. It is about basic
equality. I find it ironic that we are spending billions of dollars to
export democracy, when our fellow American citizens are denied the very
cornerstone of democracy, the right to vote. The residents of the
District of Columbia demand and deserve the right to fully participate
in our democracy.
Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton has shown great resolve in her
tireless efforts to secure full voting rights for her constituents. And
Oversight and Government Reform Committee Ranking Member Tom Davis has
been a great ally in this cause, both now and when the Republicans were
in the Majority.
The bill includes a number of important provisions.
It will increase the size of the House by two seats, from 435 to 437
seats. One of the seats will go to the District of Columbia and the
other seat will go to 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.
Importantly, the bill contains a non-severability clause, providing
that if a court holds a section of this bill invalid or unenforceable,
all other sections will be invalid or unenforceable.
Members of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee recognize
the compelling need for granting full representation to the citizens of
the District of Columbia. I hope that all of our colleagues in the
House will join us, and vote in favor of H.R. 1905, the District of
Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2007.
To be sure, while I support this bill, I do not think it goes far
enough. However, this compromise legislation is a step in the right
direction--a step towards granting residents of the District of
Columbia the ability to fully express their democratic right to vote.
This is a historic moment, and I would urge all of my colleagues to be
on the right side of history by voting in favor of this bill.
Again, I would like to express my appreciation to Congresswoman
Norton, Ranking Member Davis, and Chairman Waxman, and the House
Leadership for their dedication in bringing this vitally important
legislation to the floor and for providing us with the opportunity to
correct years of disenfranchisement.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a
unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
(Mr. MORAN of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this
bill, the D.C. Voting Rights Act.
For too long, the residents of our Nation's Capital have been without
out a full voice in Congress.
The District of Columbia is home to over 570,000 residents. It has a
larger population than Wyoming, which is represented by an at-large
member in the House and two Senators.
The men and women of the District of Columbia pay their taxes, both
to the Federal Government and the District. They salute the American
flag at Nationals, Wizards, Caps and Redskins games. And they serve or
have served in the Armed Forces. D.C. is home to over 44,000 veterans.
In Iraq and Afghanistan, four brave men have made the ultimate
sacrifice for their country.
Yet despite being an integral part of the fabric of our Nation, D.C.
continues to be denied a vote in Congress.
Today we are considering compromise, bipartisan legislation
coauthored by my friends and colleagues Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton
and Representative Tom Davis. From his position on the Government
Oversight Committee Congressman Davis has spent considerable time and
attention on issues affecting the District. And there is no stronger
advocate for her constituents than the gentlewoman from D.C.
I compliment the bill's sponsors for crafting a thoughtful approach
and a clever compromise that grants Utah an at-large representative to
balance any potential partisan division. It keeps this proposal
bipartisan and improves its prospects for favorable Senate action. I
hope the White House will rethink its current concerns and join our
bipartisan coalition to affirm the District's right to a vote.
Some who oppose this legislation have stated that it raises
constitutional concerns. But, as was stated in a recent op-ed by the
Republican D.C. Councilwoman Carol Schwartz, no less conservative
scholars than former solicitor general Kenneth Starr, former chief
judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit Patricia Wald
and Georgetown Law Professor and author of the USA Patriot Act Viet
Dihn have stated that giving the District a vote is in fact,
constitutional.
Mr. Speaker, the citizens of Washington, DC are as much red-blooded
Americans as anybody living in the 50 States.
They deserve to have their voices heard in the halls of Congress,
they deserve a representative who can vote on their behalf as this body
debates matters directly affecting their country and therefore, they
deserve to have this legislation passed today.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).
(Mr. PRICE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)

{time} 1330

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Virginia
for his leadership on this and for yielding.
I want to stipulate at the beginning of this statement that I support
enfranchisement, strongly support enfranchisement for the citizens of
the District of Columbia. However, the oath that I take on the first
day of our session stipulates that I uphold and defend the Constitution
of the United States, and I believe firmly that the Constitution will
not allow this. There is a process that we will go through for that,
and I appreciate it.

[[Page H3586]]

This has been a good debate. It has been an interesting debate. I
want to point out a section of the Constitution that isn't cited as
often as the ones that we have heard, and that is article I, section 2,
the second paragraph, which states, ``No person shall be a
Representative who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that
State in which he shall be chosen.''
If there was ever a more clear statement in the Constitution, I don't
know what that is.
But I also want to talk about this sense of one person-one vote. I am
very troubled by what we hear from our friends on the other side of the
aisle that this upholds one person-one vote, because I would suggest to
you, reading the bill and understanding what it does in both the Utah
situation and in the District of Columbia, that it provides for more
than one person and one vote.
In the Utah instance, for example, it provides that the State of Utah
gets one extra Representative, which means that the individuals in Utah
vote for two people, which means they have more authority than citizens
in my district and other districts who aren't in Utah. And in the
District of Columbia, this bill would provide for a Representative in
the House of Representatives, but also a Delegate. Also a Delegate. So
citizens in the District of Columbia would have representation from two
different individuals in the House and in the Committee of the Whole.
So I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, as Mr. Rodino, the Democrat Chair of
the Judiciary Committee stated in the 95th Congress, ``If the citizens
of the District are to have voting representation in the Congress, a
constitutional amendment is necessary, is essential. Statutory action
alone will not suffice.''
So I would ask my friends on the other side of the aisle, what
changed? What changed? Was Mr. Rodino wrong? I think not. I think not.
I think there is a statutory way to do it, and that is through
retrocession. I think there is a constitutional way to do it, by
amending the Constitution.
I would suggest to my friends on both sides that H.R. 1905 does
neither of those and violates sincerely the principle of one-person,
one-vote.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's observation, but
as you know, I schedule legislation for the floor in my capacity as the
majority leader.
May I ask my friend, if this came to the floor as a constitutional
amendment, would my friend be supportive of that constitutional
amendment?
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I appreciate
my colleague's question, but I think that is not the appropriate way to
go.
However, I strongly support retrocession to the State of Maryland,
because I believe strongly in the enfranchisement of the citizens of
the District of Columbia.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr.
Wynn) for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request.
(Mr. WYNN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. WYNN. I would like to thank the distinguished chairman.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of D.C. voting rights on behalf of the
Fourth Congressional District of Maryland, suburban neighbors of the
citizens of the District of Columbia, out in Prince George's and
Montgomery Counties. We fully and wholeheartedly support full D.C.
voting rights.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished
majority leader, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
(Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, this legislation is a critical step in
support of democracy. This legislation is important legislation. The
District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act is designed to do one
thing, to address and rectify the unjustified disenfranchisement of
more than 500,000 citizens of our country, whose only distinction
between any of us who sit on this floor, other than the distinguished
representative of the District of Columbia, Eleanor Holmes Norton, is
that they live in a few square miles designated by their country,
gifted by the State of Maryland, as our Nation's capital.
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. Let me speak briefly of that, because although I have not
heard all of the debate, I am sure the Constitution has been referenced
that Representatives shall represent citizens of the several States.
Let there be no mistake, every resident of the District of Columbia
is a successor to citizens of the several States in 1800. I don't mean
that every one of them is a direct descendant, obviously, but
politically they were part of the several States, unlike all four
others of the representatives who cannot vote. They are distinguished
and discrete in that regard. That, I suggest to you, is wrong.
It is wrong as a matter of principle because District citizens pay
Federal taxes, sit on juries, serve in our Armed Forces and give their
lives for their country, as do other Americans who enjoy full
representation in this body. It is wrong politically because District
citizens since 1801 have effectively been a ward of Congress. Very
frankly, I don't think the citizens of Maryland intended that or the
citizens of any other State of the Union when they acquired the
District of Columbia.
And it is wrong morally, because the United States of America, which
has the freest, truest form of representative government perhaps in
human history, deprives only one portion of its citizens, a small
portion, 500,000 out of 300 million, deprives a small portion of its
citizens of its very own capital a voice in the national legislature.
Let me add, the United States of America is the only representative
democracy that does not afford the citizens of its capital voting
representation. Thus, this is not only a national disgrace, but an
international embarrassment, and the American people and Members here
on both sides of the aisle recognize this injustice and want to remedy
it. That is what this legislation is about.
In fact, 82 percent of respondents in a recent national poll
indicated that residents of the District of Columbia should have
representatives that can vote in the Congress. And I should note that
legislation virtually identical to this bill was reported out of the
Republican-controlled Government Reform Committee in the last Congress
when the committee was chaired by Mr. Davis of Virginia, who is a
cosponsor of this legislation. Mr. Jack Kemp, a former colleague of
ours, a leader in this Congress, a vice presidential nominee of the
Republican Party, has strongly urged the passage of this piece of
legislation.
The truth is, 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 of the United States to correct this
injustice. The authority I refer to, of course, is article I, section 8
of the Constitution, the so-called seat of government clause, under
which, and I quote, ``The Congress shall have power to exercise
exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over the District of
Columbia.''
Now, I asked my friend, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price) who
talked about needing to do this through a constitutional amendment, I
said, would you support a constitutional amendment? He said ``no''; his
view was, only if the District of Columbia were given back to Maryland
and the District of Columbia residents were told, you are no longer
residents of the District of Columbia, you are residents of Maryland.
I suggest if you ask the residents of Virginia or Delaware or
Pennsylvania, which are contiguous States to our beloved State of
Maryland, they would say, thank you, but no thanks. We like being
Pennsylvanians or Delawarians or Virginians.
The District of Columbia residents are proud of their jurisdiction.
They are proud of being citizens of the District of Columbia. What they
want to have is full democratic representation.
Plain and simple, this sweeping language gives Congress extraordinary
and plenary power over our Nation's capital city, including the
authority to adopt legislation to enfranchise the District's 550,000
residents with a full vote in the House of Representatives.

[[Page H3587]]

I am not alone in my view of this article. Twenty-five legal scholars
from law schools, and I am sure this has already been discussed by our
distinguished chairman and the extraordinarily able Representative and
outstanding lawyer and law professor who represents the District of
Columbia, my good friend Eleanor Holmes Norton, have already pointed
this out.
Even Kenneth Starr, a distinguished lawyer, I have disagreed with him
pretty strongly on some things, but the former conservative jurist and
current dean of Pepperdine Law School, has concluded that Congress has
the authority under article I, section 8, to do this.
Now, do I delude myself that this is not going to be brought before a
district court or a circuit court or the Supreme Court? No, I do not.
That is appropriate. That is available to residents. They can do that,
and the court will ultimately have to rule. However, this is an
opportunity for us on this floor to make a stand for democracy, to
extend to these 550,000 people the civility and respect we would expect
for ourselves.
That Congress has for two centuries failed to use its authority to
correct an injustice is no reason to persist in that failure today. It
is always timely to do the right thing.
This institution exists, after all, to eliminate injustice and to
make our Nation ``a more perfect Union.'' How much more perfect can we
make the Union than to include all of our people as full citizens
within that Union?
We, the Members of this House, must never, never be seduced into
thinking there is no such thing as a settled injustice within our
authority but beyond our duty to correct. For an injustice planted two
centuries ago is just as harmful to what America aspires to be today as
one planted last year or last week.
Mr. Chairman, as Frederick Douglass, who spent his final years just a
few blocks from where I stand today, said, ``Man's greatness consists
in his ability to do and the proper application of his powers to things
needed to be done.''
We need to make the citizens of this Nation's capital full citizens
of the United States of America.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes, and I
would like to pose a couple of questions to the distinguished majority
leader.
I have listened to his historical discourse. As the gentleman knows,
Alexander Hamilton, one of our Founding Fathers, offered an amendment
during the writing of our Constitution that would have provided voting
rights to the citizens of the District of Columbia. It was defeated and
not included in our Constitution. At that time, both portions of
Maryland and portions of Virginia were included in a 100-square-mile
area, and in 1846, the portion that had come from Virginia was ceded
back to Virginia.
I wonder if the gentleman, having posed the question about the
constitutional amendment, would respond to the question, if this is
ruled unconstitutional, as many of us think it is, would the gentleman
bring to the floor legislation that would do something similar for the
portions of the District of Columbia, excepting key government
buildings, so that the citizens would have the opportunity to vote with
the citizens of his State, Maryland, for whom he can speak with some
regard?
Mr. HOYER. I will certainly seek to enfranchise the citizens on a
continuing basis until that is accomplished.
Mr. GOODLATTE. I would ask the gentleman further, if when the court,
and I hope the court does, determines that this is unconstitutional, if
in getting to that process, recognizing there are going to be lots of
uncertainties if this bill were passed and signed into law, both for
citizens of Utah, for the District of Columbia and for the operation of
the Congress as a whole, if he would join with us in supporting an
expedited judicial review to receive a prompt determination of the
constitutionality of this legislation?
Mr. HOYER. I believe this will be tested, as I said before. Many on
your side of the aisle have indicated that. If that is the case, I
would hope it would be expedited.
I believe this is constitutional, and I certainly think, based upon
that conviction, I would hope the court would sustain that view.

{time} 1345

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to my colleague from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, this is a serious matter. It is my
understanding, I am now told, I have not seen your motion to recommit;
I have no intention of supporting your motion to recommit.
This bill has a long way to go. I hope it passes this House, I hope
it passes the Senate, I hope it passes the conference, and I hope the
President signs it.
My response to you was a fair response. But the question was to get
me on the record on your motion, apparently, and I will tell my friend
from Virginia, who disagrees with my other friend from Virginia, Mr.
Davis, on this issue, that I have every intention of opposing the
motion to recommit.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to respond.
I would say, with due respect to the majority leader, the motion to
recommit was offered as an amendment. No amendments were made in order,
so it is our only recourse to offer it in those circumstances. I take
the gentleman's statement as his word that he is going to oppose it for
valid reasons, but I frankly see no valid reasons why we should not
have expedited review of this legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms.
Eddie Bernice Johnson) for a unanimous consent request.
(Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to
revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of
H.R. 1905.
I rise today in support of H.R. 1905, the District of Columbia House
Voting Rights Act of 2007. I congratulate my colleagues for their
courage and veracity to consider this measure and support its passage
after 231 years of injustice. Since the birth of our Nation the
residents of the District of Columbia have been deprived of their
fundamental Federal rights, despite paying their Federal taxes.
I would like to thank Congresswoman Elanor Holmes Norton from the
District of Columbia for her leadership and tenacity. Since elected to
Congress in 1996, Congresswoman Norton has consistently fought for
voting representation in the United States Congress.
Our democracy and our values as Americans are contingent upon the
idea that every person should have the right to vote and have that vote
counted. The citizens of the District of Columbia have not been able to
fully realize this right. While they are able to vote in presidential
election yet their voice in the body of the House of Representatives
has too often been silenced. This is in direct opposition of the values
of equality and opportunity that we hold so dearly as American
citizens.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to give the District of Columbia
residents a vote in Congress. I hope we could finally grant the
residents of the District of Columbia the voice that they deserve.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlelady from Florida (Ms.
Corrine Brown) for a unanimous consent request.
(Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida asked and was given permission to
revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise to indicate that I
will be voting ``yes'' on H.R. 1905 and that I have supported it for 15
years, and I am very happy to be supporting the doing away with the
disenfranchisement of the people of the District of Columbia.
I want to thank the Gentlelady from the District of Columbia, Ms.
Norton, Chairman Conyers, and the Gentleman from Virginia Mr. Davis for
working very hard to bring the vote to the residents of the District of
Columbia.
I rise today in support of this legislation.
This country's history is replete with certain groups being denied
the right to vote.
Being from Florida, I understand about disenfranchisement. It is
something I fight against and oppose every day. Disenfranchisement did
not end with the passage of the Voting Rights Act, and it will not end
when the residents of the District of Columbia finally get the right to
vote. It is a continual fight, needing eternal vigilance to protect.
This bill will go a long way in righting the wrongs that have been
perpetuated on the American people for too long.

[[Page H3588]]

This bill ends the 206-year-old injustice of ``taxation without
representation'' for over a half a million District residents.
Residents of the District of Columbia serve in the military, pay
billions of dollars in Federal taxes each year, serve on juries, and
assume other responsibilities of U.S. citizenship. And yet, for over
200 years, they have been denied full voting representation in the
Congress. The United States is the only democracy in the world that
deprives the residents of its capital city full voting representation
in the national legislature. Essentially, residents of every State have
a vote regarding the laws that govern the District, while those living
in the District itself do not.
Support the right to vote. Support voting rights for the residents of
the District of Columbia. Support H.R. 1905.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield now to a member of the Judiciary
Committee, Mr. Steve Cohen of Tennessee, for 30 seconds.
Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, we had distinguished speakers on both sides
of this issue argue the constitutionality in the Judiciary Committee,
both conservative and liberal members on each side, and they both gave
arguments it was constitutional.
In baseball, the tie goes to the runner, and it goes to the runner
because the runner is trying to make an advancement, trying to score,
trying to make progress. And I would submit, Mr. Speaker, that this is
progress. This is an advancement to allow the enfranchisement of these
people who have been denied the vote and their ancestors for many
years. The tie should go to the runner, we should pass this bill, and I
am proud to vote for it today.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 2
minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).
Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity and the time to
make some brief comments on this legislation.
The debate has been, as said previously, lively and very good. And it
is good that we are actually having a bill presented to this Congress
where the issue is whether it is constitutional or not. Too often this
House seems to run through legislation. A lot is mentioned, a lot is
said on this House floor, but the issue of whether it stands muster
with our Constitution is not said.
For the last 30 years, I have been in the legal profession, 8 years
as a trial lawyer and 22 years as a trial judge in the State of Texas.
And the issue always in court, especially in criminal cases, is: Is it
constitutional what occurs in that courtroom? That is always the
question of the day. And I think that is the question of today as well.
I respect the remarks of the majority leader on his comments about
how important it is for the folks in Washington, D.C. to have the right
to vote for a Member of Congress. I couldn't agree with him more. It is
the moral decision as well as an appropriate decision for us to make,
at some time.
But under this current piece of legislation, it is not
constitutional, unless we want to take the word ``state'' in the U.S.
Constitution and change it to something else. Now, that does happen
with the Supreme Court from time to time; they give a new definition to
the word. I don't know if they will give a new definition to the word
``state'' and apply it to the State of D.C. or not. We shall see,
probably, if this legislation passes.
But I think the better avenue would be to file a constitutional
amendment. No question about it. A constitutional amendment cannot be
ruled unconstitutional even by our Supreme Court. And I think that is
the better way to proceed. I think this piece of legislation for the
reasons stated by many people is unconstitutional and it should not
pass.
Let's do it the right way, the proper way, and of course the moral
way: file a constitutional amendment.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia has 30 seconds
remaining; the gentleman from Michigan has 6\3/4\ minutes remaining.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 1 minute to Danny Davis, the
distinguished Member of Congress from Illinois.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the
District of Columbia's Voting Rights Act. As chairman of the
Subcommittee on the Federal Workforce Postal and the District of
Columbia, I have listened closely to the debate, and I am firmly and
thoroughly convinced that every procedural concern has been met, every
rationalization has been met with logic, and every constitutional
question has withstood its challenges.
The only question before us now is: If not now, then when? If not us,
then who?
The real deal is that the people of the District of Columbia have
waited far too long. Justice delayed is justice denied. We must correct
this injustice and do it today. I urge passage of this legislation.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, it is now time for us to hear the Delegate
from the District of Columbia. I am honored to yield to Eleanor Holmes
Norton 5 minutes.
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman for
yielding and for his ceaseless fight for the District's rights. During
the rule, I thanked the many others who are responsible for this
historic day.
Today's vote will allow the House to erase many deep historic wrongs
from the Nation's conscience. As the House votes, District's residents
are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan in a shooting war, as they have in
every war, including the war that established our Republic.
Andy Shallal, a District resident, said it best: ``People like me of
Iraqi ancestry and even my son, who was born in the United States, are
entitled to vote in Iraq elections due in large part to the service of
the citizens of the District of Columbia and other Americans who have
fought and died in Iraq.''
And today's vote will erase the slander that the Founders of our
country who staged the revolution for representation would then deny it
to the residents of their own capital.
Professor Viet Dinh, President Bush's former point man on
constitutional matters, has wiped away the major argument that because
the District is not a State its American citizens cannot vote in the
people's House, by detailing the many ways in which ``since 1805 the
Supreme Court has recognized that Congress has the authority to treat
the District as a State, and Congress has repeatedly exercised that
authority.'' My favorite is the sixteenth amendment, which requires
only that citizens of States pay Federal income taxes. Why then have
District residents continuously been taxed without representation?
And today's vote will relieve the House of the shameful racial burden
that has been at the core of the denial of the rights of D.C. citizens.
Congress required the same racial segregation here as in the Southern
States, in schools and in public accommodations, until the 1954 Brown
decision. As one Southern Senator put it: ``The Negroes flocked in, and
there was only one way out, and that was to deny suffrage entirely to
every human being in the district.''
Former Republican Senator Edward Brooke, a native Washingtonian and
the Nation's first popularly elected black Senator, wrote: ``The
experience of living in a segregated city and of serving in our
segregated Army perhaps explains why my party's work on the Voting
Rights Act reauthorization last year and on the pending D.C. House
Voting Rights Act has been so important to me personally. The irony, of
course, is that I had to leave my hometown to get representation in
Congress and to become a Member.''
Today, I ask the House to abolish that irony and the tragedy for the
many who have come to the Nation's Capital seeking freedom for 206
years, among them my great grandfather, Richard Holmes, a slave who ran
away from a Virginia plantation in the 1850s and settled our family
here. I appeal to your conscience and ask for your vote so that finally
there also will be a vote for your fellow Americans here who have paid
for this precious right many times over in blood and in treasure.
I thank the gentleman for yielding.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time
and simply say that I think this has been an excellent debate. I think
there is good faith on both sides. But I do believe very, very
strongly, as do I think many, many other people, that this is the wrong
way to go about correcting the lack of a vote for residents of the
District of Columbia, which the other side has clearly pointed out
should be corrected. But there are correct ways to do it. An amendment
to the United

[[Page H3589]]

States Constitution, what Virginia did with recession of the land to
Maryland and allowing the citizens to vote in Maryland are both good
solutions.
We should defeat this ill-conceived and unconstitutional legislation
because the plain meaning of the Constitution, the words of the
Constitution, cannot be altered by this House. And if we start doing
that, we are indeed betraying our oaths. Defeat this legislation and do
it right.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time
remaining on our side.
I begin by commending my colleagues in the Congress on the debate
that has occurred today. It has been civil, it has been honest, and the
disagreements, both constitutionally and otherwise, have been very
clearly spread upon the record.
And why is that so? Well, because we had the same debate 27 days ago.
That is why. We have all been through this for every argument, for
every constitutional expert opinion that is regularly volunteered.
And, look, I have articulated my belief that a measure that we are
debating is unconstitutional as frequently as anybody on the other
side. I don't know what our collective batting averages of being
accurate are, but that is for the courts to decide, and I think that we
all agree to that.
The District of Columbia residents want no more than what the
Founding Fathers wanted. And, by the way, for those who wonder why we
didn't make them a State right off the bat, at that time there may have
been 150 people living in this swampy area that is now known as D.C. We
didn't have anybody to make citizens.
So join me, join us in this historic moment and pass the bill. It is
high time.
Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, our country, our Declaration of
Independence, and our Constitution are all based on a promise. The
promise in the Declaration of Independence is that taxation without
representation was, and is, wrong. The promise in our Constitution is
that all citizens of this country have ``certain inalienable rights''
and it is the job of Congress to secure those inalienable rights. H.R.
1905, the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act, would secure
those rights for the hard working, tax paying citizens who, merely
because they live in the Nation's Capital, do not have a voting
representative in the U.S. Congress.
We enjoy many rights as Americans. The right to vote and the right to
equal representation is perhaps the most sovereign right that we as
Americans have. In my own personal history as an activist, I was an
active and aggressive participant to secure these rights for all
Americans. Indeed, some of our colleagues in Congress today were jailed
and beaten to protect these civil freedoms. Unfortunately, too many
died for this cause. The sacrifices of these individuals and
organizations, along with the basic, essential sense of freedom and
justice, is a clarion call and underscores our obligation to the more
than 600,000 citizens of Washington, DC who pay some of the highest
taxes in the Nation, but do not have a vote on those taxes; who have
served and died in every war our country has fought, but do not have a
vote to authorize a war; and who, in 2007, still do not have a voting
representative in the U.S. Congress.
H.R. 1905, the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act, will not
only add full and unfettered voting power for the Representative from
the District of Columbia, it also adds a new Congressional District in
Utah. This bill, the manifestation of hard, tough, bipartisan
negotiations, finally provides fairness and justice that has been
denied for more than two centuries to the citizens of Washington, DC.
For more than two centuries and a half, while our country has made
democracy our global mantra, citizens in the Nation's Capital have not
had a voice. For more than two centuries and a half, citizens in the
Nation's Capital have been muted and marginalized. The District of
Columbia Voting Rights Act is a step in the right direction, empowers
the citizens of Washington, DC, and finally allows for the citizens of
Washington, DC to fully embrace and enjoy the fruit of their labor,
taxes, and diligence to our country.
I am pleased that the wisdom of 240 of my colleagues prevailed in
this vote, and I look forward, like the vast majority of my colleagues,
to quick action in the Senate and to President Bush signing this bill
into law as soon as possible. I applaud the work of Congresswoman
Eleanor Holmes Norton, Congressman Tom Davis, and the collective bi-
partisan effort to preserve the principle of fair, equal
representation.
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I once again rise in strong support of
H.R. 1905, legislation which will enable the residents of the District
of Columbia to secure full voting rights in the House of
Representatives. I applaud my friend and colleague, the gentle lady
from the District for her strong and persistent advocacy and leadership
on this issue which is so important to her constituents.
Mr. Speaker, we Democrats have long been committed to providing full
voting rights to the residents of the District, and I am proud to stand
here as a Democrat speaking out for this right as well. But, I would
also like to acknowledge that on this issue there has been strong
support across the aisle.
Our colleague, former Government Reform Committee Chairman Tom Davis,
worked with Congresswoman Norton to develop bipartisan agreement on
legislation to give one voting representative to the mainly Democratic
District of Columbia, and another to the largely Republican State of
Utah. This effort led to the introduction of the District of Columbia
Fair and Equal House Voting Rights Act, last year and the
reintroduction of this bill in this Congress.
Mr. Speaker, as a Delegate in the House also without a vote, I must
acknowledge the fact that my constituents, and indeed the constituents
of our colleagues from Guam, American Samoa and Puerto Rico, also would
want their representative to have a full vote in the House as well. We
recognize and acknowledge, as do the constitutional scholars who
testified in support of the DC Voting Rights Act, that the Framers of
the Constitution never intended to deny voting representation to
citizens of the Nation's Capital. Similar, we also know that just as it
is wrong to disenfranchise the residents of the District it is equally
wrong to disenfranchise my constituents and the residents of the other
territories.

However, our time for this has not yet come. But the time for the
citizens of the District of Columbia has come and is very long overdue.
The residents of the District have labored under this undemocratic
status and have been silenced for more than 200 years. That is 200
years of justice delayed and justice denied.
Presidents as far back as Andrew Jackson have advocated for full
representation in Congress for the District, and much later, President
Richard Nixon in a special message to the Congress on the District of
Columbia in 1969 said, ``It should offend the democratic sense of the
Nation that the 850,000 residents of its capital, comprising a
population larger than 11 of its States, have no voice in Congress.''
As such, the District expends billions of dollars annually to support
not only its own residents but the hundreds of thousands of daily
commuters who work in District of Columbia but live in the bordering
states. The District of Columbia's resources and infrastructure are
burdened on a daily basis with no financial assistance from the
bordering states that benefit from these services. For all intent and
purposes, the District of Columbia is treated as a state.
Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the day when all citizens under the
American flag will enjoy the democratic right of full representation in
their national assembly as well as vote for our President and
Commander-in-Chief. Until that day, I look forward to soon witnessing
the day when residents of the District of Columbia, residents of the
capital of our Nation, finally receive fair and equal voting rights in
the House, the day that they will finally have justice.
I urge my colleagues to support the District of Columbia Equal House
Voting Rights Act of 2007 and end taxation without representation for
our fellow citizens in the District of Columbia.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, today we are considering a bill that will
help bring democracy to the District of Columbia. H.R. 1905, 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. District
residents have fought in every war our Nation has faced yet get no vote
in the House of Representatives. This bill will help right this
longstanding injustice.
There have been two champions of this legislation who deserve
recognition. Congresswoman Norton has worked tirelessly on behalf of
her constituents to forge a compromise that has bipartisan support.
Representative Tom Davis, the Ranking Minority Member of the Oversight
and Government Reform Committee, has led the charge for voting rights
for the District.
The District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act includes a number of
important provisions. It will increase the size of the House by two
seats. One seat will go to the District of Columbia and the other to
Utah, the next state in line to get a congressional seat. The bill also
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 after the apportionment following the
2010 census.

[[Page H3590]]

H.R. 1905 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 part of this bill can have legal
effect unless the entire bill does. 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. 1905 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. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I am a cosponsor of this
legislation and I urge its approval.
The bill will provide residents of the District of Columbia (DC) with
full representation in the U.S. House of Representatives by permanently
expanding the House from 435 to 437 seats, with one of the new seats
allocated to DC and the other to the State next entitled to increase
its congressional representation. Based on the 2000 Census, Utah is the
State next entitled to increase its congressional representation, so
Colorado's western neighbors will gain that seat.
As we all know, Mr. Speaker, the Constitution authorizes Congress to
``exercise exclusive jurisdiction in all cases whatsoever'' over the
seat of government--that is, the area ceded to the Federal Government
and now known as the District of Columbia. But I think residents of DC
should be able to govern themselves--like residents of Colorado--to the
maximum extent consistent with allowing the Federal Government to
operate. And the fact is that right now more than half a million people
living in DC lack an essential element of self-government--full
representation in the House of Representatives. So, while residents of
Colorado and every other State have a vote regarding the laws that
govern DC, the American citizens living there do not.
Interestingly, this has not always been the case. The decision to
locate the ``seat of government'' on the Potomac was made by the First
Congress through enactment of the Residence Act. And for a decade--from
1790 to 1800--District residents were able to vote in Congressional
elections in Maryland and Virginia, even though they were not citizens
of those states, because of Congressional action recognizing and
ratifying the ceding states' laws as the applicable law for the now-
federal territory until further legislation.
However, in 1800 Congress passed a different law for DC, and since
then DC residents have been denied voting representation in Congress--
the very entity that has ultimate authority over all aspects of the
city's legislative, executive, and judicial functions. And as early as
1801, the citizens of Alexandria petitioned Congress to create a
functioning DC municipal government and restore its residents'
representation in the House of Representatives. Over the years Congress
did act to create a DC municipal government, but its residents remain
without voting representation in Congress. This bill would remedy that.
Some of the bill's opponents argue that it is not constitutional
because representation in Congress is reserved for Americans who live
in one of the 50 States. I am not a lawyer, and do not claim to be a
constitutional expert. But after careful review of the matter,
including the opinions of people who unquestionably are experts, I am
not convinced the opponents are right on that point.
As I said, the Constitution gives Congress very broad power to
legislate regarding the District of Columbia. And, as noted in the
Judiciary Committee's report on this bill, many Constitutional experts
say that this power includes the power to restore to DC residents the
right to vote for a Member of the House of Representatives that existed
from 1790 until 1800.
In short, their view is that a right given by Act of Congress in
1790, then removed by another Act of Congress in 1800, can be restored
by a third Act of Congress in 2007. I find that persuasive, and so I
will vote for this bill even though it is likely that this
interpretation of Congressional authority will be tested in the courts.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the
District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act.
For too long, the residents of our Nation's Capital have been without
a full voice in Congress.
The District of Columbia is home to over 570,000 residents. It has a
larger population than Wyoming, which is represented by an at-large
member in the House and two Senators.
The men and women of the District of Columbia pay their taxes, both
to the Federal Government and the District. They salute the American
flag at Nationals, Wizards, Caps and Redskins games. And they serve or
have served in the Armed Forces. DC is home to over 44,000 veterans. In
Iraq and Afghanistan, four brave men have made the ultimate sacrifice
for their country.
Yet despite being an integral part of the fabric of our Nation, DC
continues to be denied a vote in Congress.
Today we are considering compromise, partisan legislation coauthored
by my friends and colleagues Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton and Rep.
Tom Davis. From his position on the Government Oversight Committee
Congressman Davis has spent considerable time and attention on issues
affecting the District. And there is no stronger advocate for her
constituents than the gentlewoman from DC.
I compliment the bill's sponsors for crafting a thoughtful approach
and a clever compromise that grants Utah an at large representative to
balance any potential partisan division. It keeps this proposal
bipartisan and improves its prospects for favorable Senate action. I
hope the White House will rethink its current concerns and join our
bipartisan coalition to affirm the District's right to vote.
Some who oppose this legislation have stated that it raises
constitutional concerns. But, as was stated in a recent oped by the
Republican DC Councilwoman Carol Schwartz, no less conservative
scholars than former solicitor general Kenneth Starr, former chief
judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit Patricia Wald and
Georgetown Law Professor and author of the USA PATRIOT Act Viet Dinh
have stated that giving the District a vote is in fact, constitutional.

Mr. Speaker, the citizens of Washington, DC are as much red-blooded
Americans as anybody living in the 50 states.
They deserve to have their voices heard in the halls of Congress,
they deserve a representative who can vote on their behalf as this body
debates matters directly affecting their country and therefore, they
deserve to have this legislation passed today.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, as a longtime supporter of the District of
Columbia House Voting Rights Act, 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. 1905 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.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the support of this important and historic
legislation.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support this important
bill--the DC Voting Rights Act.
It is long past time to pass this legislation. It is not a question
of politics or political advantage, it is a question of civil rights--
it is a question of whether we believe that those people who live in
the city that houses our Democratic institutions, who often work in the
Federal government, deserve equal representation in our legislative
body.
There is simply no excuse to deny the hundreds of thousands of
residents of our Capital City the right to equal representation in the
United States Congress. They are citizens in every way. They pay the
same federal taxes as anyone else, can serve in the armed forces, and
are subject to the same laws of the land. 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 or representing the district right next to
Washington, DC, and it is simply wrong that when you cross the border
from my district into Washington, DC, you go from a district where you
have voting representation to one where you do not.
Mr. Speaker, we have before us a bipartisan compromise that extends
full voting rights to our neighbors here in the District. I urge my
colleagues to support this bill and finally end taxation without
representation.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to provide my strong support for
H.R. 1905, The District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2007.
Ensuring that all citizens have the opportunity to participate in our
democracy is a responsibility I take very seriously and H.R. 1905 is
one legislative measure that seeks to achieve this objective.
We take pride as a Nation for the numerous freedoms extended to our
citizens; however, the United States is the only democracy in the world
that deprives the residents of its capital full voting representation
in the legislature. For the past 200 years, District of Columbia
residents have fulfilled their responsibility as citizens in countless
ways such as serving in the military, paying federal taxes and serving
on juries. Their rights should now be extended to

[[Page H3591]]

include having a voice in the United States Congress.
There is no place in our democracy for the 206-year-old injustice of
``taxation without representation'' for the over half a million
District residents. With 82 percent of our Nation's citizens in support
of expanding this fundamental right to vote to all citizens, the time
is now to correct this injustice and restore democracy in our Nation's
capital.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to capitalize on this opportunity
to extend to District residents an entitlement cherished so deeply by
citizens of the United States--the right to vote.

{time} 1400

The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to House Resolution 317, the bill is considered as read and
the previous question is ordered.
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. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. SMITH of Texas. I am 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. 1905 to
the Committee on the Judiciary with instructions to report
the same back to the House forthwith with the following
amendment:
Add at the end the following new section:

SEC. 5. EXPEDITED JUDICIAL REVIEW.

(a) Special Rules for Actions Brought on Constitutional
Grounds.--If any action is brought for declaratory or
injunctive relief to challenge the constitutionality of any
provision of this Act or any amendment made by this Act, the
following rules shall apply:
(1) The action shall be filed in the United States District
Court for the District of Columbia and shall be heard by a 3-
judge court convened pursuant to section 2284 of title 28,
United States Code.
(2) A copy of the complaint shall be delivered promptly to
the Clerk of the House of Representatives and the Secretary
of the Senate.
(3) A final decision in the action shall be reviewable only
by appeal directly to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Such appeal shall be taken by the filing of a notice of
appeal within 10 days, and the filing of a jurisdictional
statement within 30 days, of the entry of the final decision.
(4) It shall be the duty of the United States District
Court for the District of Columbia and the Supreme Court of
the United States to advance on the docket and to expedite to
the greatest possible extent the disposition of the action
and appeal.
(b) Intervention by Members of Congress.--In any action in
which the constitutionality of any provision of this Act or
any amendment made by this Act is raised (including but not
limited to an action described in subsection (a)), any member
of the House of Representatives (including a Delegate or
Resident Commissioner to the Congress) or Senate shall have
the right to intervene either in support of or opposition to
the position of a party to the case regarding the
constitutionality of the provision or amendment. To avoid
duplication of efforts and reduce the burdens placed on the
parties to the action, the court in any such action may make
such orders as it considers necessary, including orders to
require intervenors taking similar positions to file joint
papers or to be represented by a single attorney at oral
argument.
(c) Challenge by Members of Congress.--Any Member of
Congress may bring an action, subject to the special rules
described in subsection (a), for declaratory or injunctive
relief to challenge the constitutionality of any provision of
this Act or any amendment made by this Act.

Mr. SMITH of Texas (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent that the motion to recommit be considered as read and printed
in the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Texas is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, let me be clear. Any Member who
votes for this bill is voting to grant D.C. residents more voting power
in the House of Representatives than any of their own constituents now
enjoy. That is because this latest version of the bill fails to
eliminate the position of D.C. Delegate.
The D.C. Delegate can, of course, vote in committee, which means that
if this bill passes, D.C. residents will have two votes in committee
and one on the House floor. That would give D.C. residents more voting
power in the House than any other voter in the country. That is
obviously unfair, and I think we all know it.
Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit simply requires expedited
judicial review of the constitutionality of the bill's provision. I
believe this legislation is unconstitutional and will produce
significant legal and electoral turmoil if enacted. So it is critical
that the motion to recommit be adopted to ensure that if the bill
violates the Constitution, that unconstitutional action will not be
prolonged.
This motion to recommit constitutes the very same expedited judicial
review provision Congress agreed was appropriate, on a bipartisan
basis, in the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law. That provision was
successfully employed to facilitate the Supreme Court's expeditious
review of that legislation.
Opponents might claim that an expedited review of the legislation
would already be provided by 28 U.S.C. sections 2284 and 1253, but that
is very far from clear. 28 U.S.C. section 2284 only applies to
``actions filed challenging the constitutionality of an apportionment
of a congressional district over the apportionment of any statewide
legislative body.'' The creation of a new House Member to represent a
non-State constitutes neither an apportionment nor something relating
to a statewide legislative body. The 14th amendment itself makes clear
that apportionment is a concept that only applies to States.
Also, nothing in 28 U.S.C. section 1253 requires the Supreme Court to
ever hear the case, and absent a statutory requirement, the Supreme
Court retains the discretion regarding whether and when to a hear a
case.
In contrast, the motion to recommit requires that the case be brought
in the District of Columbia before a three-judge Federal district court
with direct appeal to the Supreme Court. The motion to recommit
provides that ``It shall be the duty of the United States District
Court for the District of Columbia and the Supreme Court of the United
States to advance on the docket and to expedite to the greatest
possible extent the disposition of the action and appeal.''
Professor Jonathan Turley, someone the majority consults frequently
for his views, said in his testimony offered at the Judiciary
Committee's hearing on the first of three versions of this bill that
were introduced, ``Permit me to be blunt, I consider this act to be the
most premeditated unconstitutional act by Congress in decades.''
As Professor Turley also pointed out, the inevitable legal challenge
to this bill could produce legislative chaos. With a relatively close
party division in the House, the casting of a determinative vote
subsequently held invalid by a court could throw the validity of pieces
of future legislation into question.
There is no reason to stall a judicial resolution of these important
issues, especially when doing so risks legislative chaos regarding the
validity of future legislation passed by the House.
Mr. Speaker, if supporters of H.R. 1905 believe the bill is
constitutional, and I know they do, they should want to get that
constitutionality established by the Supreme Court as soon as possible.
Likewise, we should all want to shorten the time that the
Representatives created under this bill would serve, if they are, in
fact, declared unconstitutional.
The bill is either constitutional or it is not. Let's adopt this
motion to ensure that question is resolved expeditiously and to prevent
as much uncertainty as possible.
I encourage my colleagues to support this motion to recommit.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to
recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to commend my friend
from Texas (Mr. Smith). His arguments are cogent and our relationship
on the committee is excellent.
But I must comment as to the argument that our bill allows the
District of Columbia to have both a Representative and a Delegate. We
fully intend to

[[Page H3592]]

repeal the Delegate part of it by separate statute as soon as we get
the bill that will allow the District to have a Representative.
We have had lots of debate, and he has quoted Professor Turley, who
has made the most extreme statement, his personal beliefs. And we
invited him as a panelist, but he has been profoundly in the minority
on a number of other issues as well. So I do not regard his opinion as
having any more or less importance or significance than any of the
other constitutional experts that we heard.
Now, here is the problem. We would, if this motion to recommit were
passed, provide for two things: expedited review of this matter and
standing to all Members of Congress to challenge the constitutionality
of the bill before us. Four hundred thirty-five Members would be
granted standing. Why? Are there not enough constitutional lawyers and
supporters and opponents on both sides to take care of this matter,
rather than to have the Supreme Court filled with Members of Congress
wanting to vent probably very repetitious views?
This is a motion based on an amendment which has been debated and
defeated in the Judiciary Committee when we considered an earlier
version of this bill only weeks ago.
Now, I recognize and appreciate that the motion is being offered in
good faith to amend the bill. However, as I have stated before, it is
my concern that this recommit motion will do far more harm than it
could ever cause good.
I am concerned that the motion puts Congress down on record as
believing that the bill is constitutionally weak. It is not, and
therefore, I cannot support a motion to recommit that would make this
concession. Nothing could be further from the truth.
We have had hearings on top of hearings from everyone who claimed to
be a constitutional expert on this subject anywhere in the Judiciary
Committee. We have heard from everybody on both sides of the aisle over
the last several Congresses, and based on the record, there is ample
precedent for the Congress, using the District clause as authority for
this legislation as they have for taxes, for diversity, for labor and
numerous other matters. Clearly, this bill falls within the general
line of authority.
Now, concerning expedited judicial review in this motion, the courts
are perfectly capable of handling the issue. There are judicial
standards for dealing with expedited review, namely, when there is a
showing of irreparable harm. Nobody has mentioned that as a reason for
having expedited review. Irreparable harm coming and giving the
Delegate of this District the right to vote? We have statutes on the
books that cover this very issue already.
We did not provide expedited review of such controversial laws as the
PATRIOT Act, parts of which have actually been held, subsequently,
unconstitutional. Yet, the issue was readily dealt with by the courts.
The courts will readily deal with this issue as well. And I am
strongly opposed to the idea of Congress passing laws that confer
unique standing on themselves or special rights to intervene in pending
lawsuits.
You can always become amicus curiae, and so for those reasons and
others, I urge that this motion to recommit be turned down.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to
recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of passage of the bill.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 193,
nays 227, not voting 13, as follows:

[Roll No. 230]

YEAS--193

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jindal
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NAYS--227

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castor
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Filner
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth

NOT VOTING--13

Boehner
Cantor
Cubin
Davis, Jo Ann
Fattah
Higgins
Israel

[[Page H3593]]

Lampson
Millender-McDonald
Rohrabacher
Schmidt
Walsh (NY)
Wicker

{time} 1434

Messrs. BRADY of Pennsylvania, SPRATT, ALLEN, HALL of New York, HILL,
BACA, SCOTT of Virginia, KAGEN, BLUMENAUER, CLYBURN, VAN HOLLEN, KLEIN
of Florida, Ms. GIFFORDS, Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California, Ms.
McCOLLUM of Minnesota, and Ms. ESHOO changed their vote from ``yea'' to
``nay.''
Messrs. DAVIS of Kentucky, HASTERT, CAMP of Michigan, HERGER, SHAYS,
YOUNG of Alaska, Mrs. MYRICK and Mrs. BLACKBURN changed their vote from
``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mrs. SCHMIDT. Mr. Speaker, on H.R. 1905, motion to recommit, I was
unavoidably detained due to official business. I would have voted
``yea.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ross). The question is on the passage of
the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 241,
noes 177, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 14, as follows:

[Roll No. 231]

AYES--241

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Cannon
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Castle
Castor
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Ferguson
Filner
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gilchrest
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth Sandlin
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
LaHood
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pence
Perlmutter
Platts
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Renzi
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shays
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth

NOES--177

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Blackburn
Blunt
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boustany
Boyda (KS)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Capito
Carney
Carter
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Deal (GA)
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Jindal
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Kanjorski
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
Lamborn
Latham
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Poe
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Sali
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Taylor
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

Bishop (UT)

NOT VOTING--14

Berman
Boehner
Cantor
Cubin
Davis, Jo Ann
Fattah
Higgins
Israel
Lampson
Millender-McDonald
Peterson (MN)
Rohrabacher
Walsh (NY)
Wicker

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised 2
minutes remain in this vote.

{time} 1442

So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Speaker, had I been present for the vote on H.R.
1905. I would have voted ``aye.''

____________________