[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 70 (Tuesday, May 1, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S5394-S5397]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mr. LIEBERMAN (for himself, Mr. Hatch, and Mr. Bennett):
  S. 1257. A bill to provide the District of Columbia a voting seat and 
the State of Utah an additional seat in the House of Representatives; 
to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from 
Utah, Senator Hatch, to introduce bipartisan legislation that I believe 
is the breakthrough we have been searching for to bring House voting 
representation to the residents of the District of Columbia, who have 
historically been denied this fundamental birthright.
  I am proud to join with, DC Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton and 
Representative Tom Davis, and the many others from both parties and 
both houses who have worked without rest to remedy the 
disenfranchisement of District residents since the capital was 
established in Washington in 1800. I especially want to thank my friend 
Senator Hatch for his influential support of this voting rights 
proposal, which would bring to an end a gross inconsistency with the 
founding principles of our Nation.
  Mr. President, we have a historic opportunity today to finally bestow 
upon the citizens of the District of Columbia the civic entitlement 
every other tax-paying American citizen enjoys no matter where he or 
she resides, democracy's most essential right, voting representation in 
Congress.
  The bill is simple. It would increase the number of voting 
representatives in the House from 435 to 437 by providing the District 
with a voting representative and by adding another congressional seat 
for Utah, the next State in line to increase its representation based 
on the 2000 Census.
  Working cooperatively in the spirit of service to the people of 
Washington, DC, and Utah, Congresswoman Norton and Congressman Davis 
shepherded a similar proposal through the House Government Reform 
Committee on March 13 by a vote of 24-5. The full House approved the 
measure April 20 by a vote of 241-177, a historic day unlike any other 
since 1978 when Congress approved a constitutional amendment to give 
District residents voting rights in the House and Senate. Of course, 
that amendment came to naught when too few States ratified it.
  The people of this city have waited far too long for this right. They 
have been the direct target of terrorist attacks, and yet they have no 
representative to vote in Congress on policies to protect their 
homeland security. Citizens of Washington, DC, pay income taxes just 
like everyone else. In fact, they pay more: Per capita, District 
residents have the second highest Federal tax obligation. And yet they 
have no voice in how high those taxes will be or how they will be 
spent. The District is also the only jurisdiction in the country that 
must seek congressional approval, through the appropriations process, 
before spending locally-generated tax dollars. When Congress fails to 
pass appropriations bills before the beginning of the fiscal year, the 
District's budget is essentially frozen. And yet DC has no say in that 
appropriations process.
  DC residents fight and die for our democracy but they cannot 
participate fully in it. I ask you, how can we effectively promote 
democracy abroad while denying it to hundreds of thousands of citizens 
in our Nation's Capital?
  There is no good reason why DC residents have been denied 
congressional representation. In 1800, when the nation's capital was 
established as the District of Columbia, an oversight left the area's 
residents without congressional representation. Maryland and Virginia 
ceded land for the capitol in 1788 and 1789, respectively, but it took 
another 10 years for Congress to establish the District of Columbia. In 
the interim, residents continued to vote either in Maryland or 
Virginia, but Congress withdrew those voting rights once the District 
was founded. Unfortunately, apparently by omission, Congress neglected 
to establish new voting rights for the citizens of the new district.
  The right to be counted, to have your voice heard by your government 
is central to a functioning democracy and fundamental to a free 
society. If we are willing to sacrifice our young men and women in the 
name of freedom, we must be willing to protect their freedoms as well. 
This legislation would do just that.
  In 2002, 10 cosponsors and I introduced the No Taxation without 
Representation Act. I held a hearing on the bill in the Governmental 
Affairs Committee, which I then chaired. It was the first hearing in 
Congress on DC voting rights since 1994. We reported the bill out of 
committee, but the Senate never took action on it.
  Today, the tide has changed. Members from both parties have come 
together to find a solution to break the stalemates of the past that 
have denied DC residents equal representation in Congress. The State of 
Utah has united in favor of a fourth congressional seat, and Senator 
Hatch has lent his considerable support to this effort. Mr. President, 
this legislation represents an uncommon victory for fairness and a rare 
but hopefully increasingly more common example of what we can do if we 
work together to accomplish our mutual goals.
  The essence of our work in the legislative branch is compromise, and 
the compromise reached by Senator Hatch

[[Page S5395]]

and I will bring partial voting representation to the District while 
ensuring Utah receives the additional representation it is due.
  I know there are those who believe this bill is unconstitutional. But 
the District clause of the Constitution, which gives Congress the power 
to legislate ``in all cases whatsoever'' pertaining to the District, 
provides ample authority for the legislative branch to give DC 
residents voting rights.
  Mr. President, this is our moment to do right here at home, just as 
we have done throughout our history for our democratic allies abroad. 
By giving the citizens of the District of Columbia a vote in the House, 
we will ensure not only that their voices will finally be heard. We 
will be following the imperative of our history and moral values. The 
Framers of our Constitution in effect placed with Congress the solemn 
responsibility of assuring that the rights of DC citizens would be 
protected in the future, just as it is our responsibility to protect 
the rights of all citizens throughout this great country. Congress has 
failed to meet this obligation for more than 200 years, and I am not 
prepared to make DC citizens wait another 200 years.
  Mr. President, the tax-paying citizens of the District of Columbia 
have been without congressional voting representation for too long. The 
House has acted. Now it is time for the Senate to act. I urge my 
colleagues to join Senator Hatch and me in support of this essential 
legislation.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be 
printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the text of the bill was ordered to be 
printed in the Record, as follows:

                                S. 1257

       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 111th Congress and each succeeding 
     Congress, the House of Representatives shall be composed of 
     437 Members, including the Member 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 111th 
     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) Transmittal of Revised Apportionment Information by 
     President.--
       (1) 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 and identifying the State 
     of Utah as the State entitled to one additional 
     Representative pursuant to this section.
       (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 shall submit a report to the Speaker of the 
     House of Representatives identifying the State of Utah as the 
     State entitled to one additional Representative pursuant to 
     this section.

     SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE; TIMING OF ELECTIONS.

       The general election for the additional Representative to 
     which the State of Utah is entitled for the 111th Congress 
     and 112th Congress and the general election for the 
     Representative from the District of Columbia for the 111th 
     Congress and the 112th Congress shall be subject to the 
     following requirements:
       (1) The additional Representative from the State of Utah 
     will be elected pursuant to a redistricting plan enacted by 
     the State, such as the plan the State of Utah signed into law 
     on December 5, 2006, which--
       (A) revises the boundaries of Congressional districts in 
     the State to take into account the additional Representative 
     to which the State is entitled under section 3; and
       (B) remains in effect until the taking effect of the first 
     reapportionment occurring after the regular decennial census 
     conducted for 2010.
       (2) The additional Representative from the State of Utah 
     and the Representative from the District of Columbia shall be 
     sworn in and seated as Members of the House of 
     Representatives on the same date as other Members of the 
     111th Congress.

     SEC. 5. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.

       (a) Repeal of Office of District of Columbia Delegate.--
       (1) Repeal of office.--
       (A) In general.--Sections 202 and 204 of the District of 
     Columbia Delegate Act (Public Law 91-405; sections 1-401 and 
     1-402, D.C. Official Code) are repealed, and the provisions 
     of law amended or repealed by such sections are restored or 
     revived as if such sections had not been enacted.
       (B) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection 
     shall take effect on the date on which a Representative from 
     the District of Columbia takes office for the 111th Congress.
       (2) Conforming amendments to district of columbia elections 
     code of 1955.--The District of Columbia Elections Code of 
     1955 is amended as follows:
       (A) In section 1 (sec. 1-1001.01, D.C. Official Code), by 
     striking ``the Delegate to the House of Representatives,'' 
     and inserting ``the Representative in Congress,''.
       (B) In section 2 (sec. 1-1001.02, D.C. Official Code)--
       (i) by striking paragraph (6); and
       (ii) in paragraph (13), by striking ``the Delegate to 
     Congress for the District of Columbia,'' and inserting ``the 
     Representative in Congress,''.
       (C) In section 8 (sec. 1-1001.08, D.C. Official Code)--
       (i) in the heading, by striking ``Delegate'' and inserting 
     ``Representative''; and
       (ii) by striking ``Delegate,'' each place it appears in 
     subsections (h)(1)(A), (i)(1), and (j)(1) and inserting 
     ``Representative in Congress,''.
       (D) In section 10 (sec. 1-1001.10, D.C. Official Code)--
       (i) in subsection (a)(3)(A)--

       (I) by striking ``or section 206(a) of the District of 
     Columbia Delegate Act''; and
       (II) by striking ``the office of Delegate to the House of 
     Representatives'' and inserting ``the office of 
     Representative in Congress'';

       (ii) in subsection (d)(1), by striking ``Delegate,'' each 
     place it appears; and
       (iii) in subsection (d)(2)--

       (I) by striking ``(A) In the event'' and all that follows 
     through ``term of office,'' and inserting ``In the event that 
     a vacancy occurs in the office of Representative in Congress 
     before May 1 of the last year of the Representative's term of 
     office,''; and
       (II) by striking subparagraph (B).

       (E) In section 11(a)(2) (sec. 1-1001.11(a)(2), D.C. 
     Official Code), by striking ``Delegate to the House of 
     Representatives,'' and inserting ``Representative in 
     Congress,''.
       (F) In section 15(b) (sec. 1-1001.15(b), D.C. Official 
     Code), by striking ``Delegate,'' and inserting 
     ``Representative in Congress,''.
       (G) In section 17(a) (sec. 1-1001.17(a), D.C. Official 
     Code), by striking ``the Delegate to Congress from the 
     District of Columbia'' and inserting ``the Representative in 
     Congress''.
       (b) Repeal of Office of Statehood Representative.--
       (1) In general.--Section 4 of the District of Columbia 
     Statehood Constitutional Convention Initiative of 1979 (sec. 
     1-123, D.C. Official Code) is amended as follows:
       (A) By striking ``offices of Senator and Representative'' 
     each place it appears in subsection (d) and inserting 
     ``office of Senator''.
       (B) In subsection (d)(2)--
       (i) by striking ``a Representative or'';
       (ii) by striking ``the Representative or''; and
       (iii) by striking ``Representative shall be elected for a 
     2-year term and each''.
       (C) In subsection (d)(3)(A), by striking ``and 1 United 
     States Representative''.
       (D) By striking ``Representative or'' each place it appears 
     in subsections (e), (f), (g), and (h).

[[Page S5396]]

       (E) By striking ``Representative's or'' each place it 
     appears in subsections (g) and (h).
       (2) Conforming amendments.--
       (A) Statehood commission.--Section 6 of such Initiative 
     (sec. 1-125, D.C. Official Code) is amended--
       (i) in subsection (a)--

       (I) by striking ``27 voting members'' and inserting ``26 
     voting members'';
       (II) by adding ``and'' at the end of paragraph (5); and
       (III) by striking paragraph (6) and redesignating paragraph 
     (7) as paragraph (6); and

       (ii) in subsection (a-1)(1), by striking subparagraph (H).
       (B) Authorization of appropriations.--Section 8 of such 
     Initiative (sec. 1-127, D.C. Official Code) is amended by 
     striking ``and House''.
       (C) Application of honoraria limitations.--Section 4 of 
     D.C. Law 8-135 (sec. 1-131, D.C. Official Code) is amended by 
     striking ``or Representative'' each place it appears.
       (D) Application of campaign finance laws.--Section 3 of the 
     Statehood Convention Procedural Amendments Act of 1982 (sec. 
     1-135, D.C. Official Code) is amended by striking ``and 
     United States Representative''.
       (E) District of columbia elections code of 1955.--The 
     District of Columbia Elections Code of 1955 is amended--
       (i) in section 2(13) (sec. 1-1001.02(13), D.C. Official 
     Code), by striking ``United States Senator and 
     Representative,'' and inserting ``United States Senator,''; 
     and
       (ii) in section 10(d) (sec. 1-1001.10(d)(3), D.C. Official 
     Code), by striking ``United States Representative or''.
       (3) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection 
     shall take effect on the date on which a Representative from 
     the District of Columbia takes office for the 111th Congress.
       (c) Conforming Amendments Regarding Appointments to Service 
     Academies.--
       (1) United states military academy.--Section 4342 of title 
     10, United States Code, is amended--
       (A) in subsection (a), by striking paragraph (5); and
       (B) in subsection (f), by striking ``the District of 
     Columbia,''.
       (2) United states naval academy.--Such title is amended--
       (A) in section 6954(a), by striking paragraph (5); and
       (B) in section 6958(b), by striking ``the District of 
     Columbia,''.
       (3) United states air force academy.--Section 9342 of title 
     10, United States Code, is amended--
       (A) in subsection (a), by striking paragraph (5); and
       (B) in subsection (f), by striking ``the District of 
     Columbia,''.
       (4) Effective date.--This subsection and the amendments 
     made by this subsection shall take effect on the date on 
     which a Representative from the District of Columbia takes 
     office for the 111th Congress.

     SEC. 6. 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 or any amendment made by 
     this Act shall be treated and deemed invalid and shall have 
     no force or effect of law.

  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, I rise today to join with Senate Committee 
on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Chairman Joseph Lieberman 
and Senator Robert Bennett in introducing the District of Columbia 
Voting House Rights Act of 2007. Our colleagues in the House of 
Representatives recently passed similar legislation, H.R. 1905, that 
would provide a fourth congressional seat for my home state of Utah and 
the first voting member for the District of Columbia. No doubt, this is 
a historic time for the citizens of the District of Columbia and a 
unique opportunity for Utah to receive a long overdue fourth 
congressional seat.
  The Founding Fathers made clear in article 1, section 8 of the 
Constitution that the District of Columbia would be the seat of the 
national government and granted Congress the power ``[t]o exercise 
exclusive Legislation, in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not 
exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, 
and the Acceptance of Congress become the Seat of the Government of the 
United States . . .'' This clause became effective in 1790 when 
Congress accepted land that Maryland and Virginia ceded to the United 
States to create the national capital. Ten years later, in December 
1800, jurisdiction over the District of Columbia was vested in the 
Federal Government. Since then, District residents have not had the 
right to vote for Members of Congress. Additionally, article 1, section 
2 and section 3 of the Constitution provides that citizens of States 
shall have voting representation in the House and Senate.
  During my time in the Senate, I have heard from many District 
residents who believe strongly that their voice should be heard in 
Congress. They pay taxes, vote in presidential elections, and serve in 
the military. Yet these nearly 600,000 Americans do not have a voting 
representative in Congress. Many, including myself, have been reluctant 
to support previous proposals based upon the constitutional principle 
that States, not territories, are afforded congressional 
representation. I understand the argument that congressional 
representation is dependent on statehood and, therefore, the 
Constitution would need to be amended before the District is given a 
voting representative in Congress. While the Constitution does not 
affirmatively grant District residents the right to vote in 
congressional elections, it does affirmatively grant Congress plenary 
power to govern the District's affairs. Indeed, the Constitution grants 
Congress exclusive authority to legislate all matters concerning the 
District, and I believe this authority extends to the granting of 
congressional voting rights for District residents.
  I support this legislation not only because it rectifies the 
District's undemocratic political status, but it gives my home State of 
Utah a long overdue fourth voting Member in the House of 
Representatives.
  During the 2000 Census count, Utah missed out on a fourth House seat 
by only 857 people. The Census Bureau counted members of the military 
serving abroad as residents of their home State, but did not count an 
estimated 14,000 Utah missionaries from the Church of Jesus Christ of 
Latter-day Saints living abroad. Utah took its fight for a fourth seat 
all the way to the Supreme Court, but lost. Instead, North Carolina 
gained another seat in the House by 856 residents. Since then, I have 
heard from many Utahns and share their frustrations about the outcome 
of the 2000 Census.
  Why push for an additional seat now? Under normal circumstances, Utah 
would have to wait until the 2010 Census to see if its growing 
population justifies another congressional seat. However, the proposed 
legislation provides Utah a chance to receive another voting member of 
Congress 5 years early. That is equivalent to two and a half terms for 
a Member of Congress and places the new Member well on his or her way 
in establishing seniority and influence for the benefit of Utah's 
citizens. I don't think this is an offer we should dismiss.
  I have some constitutional concerns with H.R. 1905's attempt to 
impose an at-large seat upon my State of Utah. In States with more than 
one seat in the House, Members are expected to represent insular 
constituencies. Under H.R. 1905, residents of one State would be 
represented by two House Members while citizens in other States would 
have one. In addition, in our constitutional system, States are 
responsible for elections and Utah has chosen the approach it wants to 
take by redistricting. I see no warrant for Congress to undermine this 
balance and impose upon Utah a scheme it has not chosen for itself. For 
this reason, in the proposed Senate legislation, I insisted that Utah 
be required to redistrict to provide for the new seat. I believe that 
Utah's legislators deserve the freedom to determine their 
representatives' districts without unjustified intrusion or mandate of 
the Federal Government.
  Additionally, the House bill would require Utah to hold a special 
election in 2007 if the bill passes. The Senate version requires that 
both seats be elected in the November 2008 general election. 
Thereafter, both new Members would begin their service at the start of 
the 111th Congress in 2009.
  In conclusion, let me say that I recognize there are many who 
strongly oppose this legislation. There are many who wish the District 
voting rights issue would simply go away. The Democratic-controlled 
Congress could have simply pushed forward with legislation giving the 
District of Columbia a seat without balancing a ``Democrat'' seat with 
a ``Republican'' seat. I am pleased that this was not the case. The 
House of Representatives has already voted in favor of moving this 
legislation forward. Now it is up to the Senate. Let me be clear, the 
proposed legislation does not provide Senate representation for the 
District of Columbia. I am not in favor of granting two Senators for 
the District and would not support such a proposal.
  As one who represents Utah, I have an important responsibility to 
ensure

[[Page S5397]]

that my State is dealt with properly and fairly. And, in light of the 
House's recent legislative action, I am determined to do all that I can 
to ensure that Utah's fourth seat configuration is done right. I want 
my fellow Utahns to know that the window of opportunity is quickly 
closing. In fact, I dare say there won't be another opportunity like 
this again. For this reason, I intend to make the most of it and hope 
that my Senate colleagues will support me in this endeavor.
                                 ______