[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 137 (Monday, September 17, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11570-S11571]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 2007
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, in 2005, President Bush praised the Iraqi
people for exercising the Democratic right to vote. He noted that by
participating in free elections, the Iraqi people firmly rejected the
anti-democratic ideology of the terrorists, and they demonstrated the
kind of courage that is always the foundation of self-government.
Similar to President Bush, I applaud when anyone has the right to vote
and the right to determine where they will go with that right to vote.
I wish, though, the President would speak as enthusiastically about
voting rights for the American citizens who live literally in his
backyard, in the same city where he resides in the White House. It is
disappointing that the Bush administration has threatened to veto
legislation that would give a vote to the Member of the House of
Representatives from the District of Columbia.
I also understand the opponents of this voting rights bill are
considering a filibuster to prevent its passage. In a recent column in
the Washington Times, former Maryland Governor Michael Steele and
former Congressman J.C. Watts, two Republicans, reminded us that the
last time a voting rights bill was filibustered was 50 years ago. I was
much too young to even vote, but I do remember that filibuster. Despite
Senator Thurmond's record-setting effort, the Senate rightfully passed
the Civil Rights Act in 1957. It followed up with the Civil Rights and
Voting Rights Acts in 1960, 1964 and 1965. I hope the Senate does not
return to the days when it filibustered voting rights, especially for
its African-American citizens.
The city of the District of Columbia has approximately the same
number of people as the State of Vermont. We are the 14th State in the
Union. We have had the right to vote, for Senators and Representatives,
for over 200 years. The distinguished Presiding Officer, of course,
represents one of the very first States of this Union. In fact, he can
proudly represent a State whose forefathers did much to design the
United States of America and has provided President after President but
especially laid the cornerstone of a great nation. It made it possible
for the State of Vermont to be the first State admitted after the
original 13.
There is no way I could go back to my State of Vermont and say that
the District of Columbia, with almost exactly the same number of
people, does not have a voting Member in the House of Representatives.
Back in my State, they would say we have two Senators, but at least let
us take this step. Let us vote it up or down. Let's not go back to the
shameful days of 1957 when such rights were filibustered.
We have had hearings on this in the Senate Judiciary Committee. We
have heard compelling testimony.
This month the Judiciary Committee marked the 50th anniversary of the
Civil Rights Act of 1957 with a hearing. Congressman John Lewis, a
courageous leader during those transformational struggles only decades
ago, gave moving testimony reminding us that ``we in Congress must do
all we can to inspire a new generation to fulfill the mission of equal
justice.'' While we are observing this golden anniversary, it is
fitting that the Senate turn to this important voting rights measure,
the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act.
I am a cosponsor of this bipartisan legislation to end the unfair
treatment of District of Columbia residents and give them full
representation in the House of Representatives. I thank the majority
leader, Senator Reid, for bringing this timely issue to the Senate for
consideration.
In April, the House of Representatives worked in a bipartisan manner
to pass their version of a voting rights bill for the District of
Columbia, led by Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton. As a young
lawyer, she worked for civil rights and voting rights around the
country. It is a cruel irony that upon her return to the District of
Columbia and election to the House of Representatives she does not yet
have the right to vote on behalf of the people of the District of
Columbia who elected her. She is a strong voice in Congress but the
people of the District of Columbia deserve a vote, as well.
This is not the time for further delay. It is the Senate's turn to do
what is right. The Senate bill would give the District of Columbia
delegate a full vote in the House. To attract Republican support, the
bill offsets that vote for DC by according Utah an additional
Representative in the House, as well. This is an effort to provide
political balance. With it or without it, I support representation for
the District of Columbia.
I believe that the legislation that we are considering today is
within Congress's powers as provided in the Constitution. I agree with
Congressman Lewis, Congresswoman Norton and numerous other civil rights
leaders and constitutional scholars that we should extend the basic
right of voting representation to the hundreds of thousands of
Americans residing in our Nation's Capital. They pay Federal taxes,
defend our country in the military and serve on Federal juries. They
are citizens no less than the citizens of any State. Their votes should
count. They should be represented.
In May the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on this
legislation. We heard compelling testimony.
[[Page S11571]]
Retired Chief Judge Patricia Wald testified that this legislation is
constitutional and highlighted the fact that Congress's greater power
in accordance with the Constitution to confer full statehood on the
District certainly contains the lesser power to grant District
residents voting rights in the House of Representatives. She also
reminded us that Congress has exercised this authority in the past
without a rigid adherence to the constitutional text when it granted
voting rights to Americans abroad in their last State of residence
regardless of whether they are citizens of that State, pay taxes to
that State, or have any intent to return to that State. Her former
colleague on the DC Circuit, Ken Starr, echoed her conclusion that this
legislation is constitutional.
Congress has repeatedly treated the District of Columbia as a
``State'' for various purposes. Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton
testified that although ``the District is not a State,'' the ``Congress
has not had the slightest difficulty in treating the District as a
State, with its laws, its treaties, and for constitutional purposes.''
Examples of these actions include a revision of the Judiciary Act of
1789 that broadened article III diversity jurisdiction to include
citizens of the District even though the Constitution only provides
that Federal courts may hear cases ``between citizens of different
States.'' Congress has also treated the District as a ``State'' for
purposes of congressional power to regulate commerce ``among the
several States.'' The 16th amendment grants Congress the power to
directly tax incomes ``without apportionment among the several
States.'' That constitutional provision has been interpreted also to
apply to residents of the District. In fact, the District of Columbia
pays the second-highest Federal taxes per capita, yet has no vote in
connection with how those dollars are spent. The local license plates
say a good deal and remind us of our heritage when they say ``Taxation
without Representation.''
As I said, in 2005, President Bush praised the Iraqi people for
exercising their democratic right to vote, and he noted that ``by
participating in free elections, the Iraqi people have firmly rejected
the antidemocratic ideology of the terrorists [a]nd they have
demonstrated the kind of courage that is always the foundation of self-
government.'' Unfortunately, the President does not speak so
enthusiastically about voting rights for the American citizens living
literally in his backyard. It is disappointing that the Bush
administration has threatened to veto this legislation.
____________________