Congressional Record, Volume 153 Issue 138 (Tuesday, September 18, 2007)

[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 138 (Tuesday, September 18, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11626-S11632]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HOUSE VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 2007--MOTION TO PROCEED

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 15
minutes equally divided between the two leaders or their designees on
the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to S. 1257.
Who seeks time? The Senator from Connecticut.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to urge my colleagues to support
the legislation before us today which was reported out of our committee
on a 9-to-1 vote, bipartisan support.
In some sense, it is unbelievable that we are here today in 2007
trying, against some odds at this moment, to give to the residents of
the Capital City of the United States, the District of Columbia, the
right to have a voting representative in the Congress of the United
States. To me, it is unbelievable, it is palpably unjust and, in my
opinion, a national embarrassment.
This bill, comparable to a bill that passed the House of
Representatives--bipartisan--cosponsored by Delegate Eleanor Holmes
Norton and Congressman Tom Davis--basically rights this grievous wrong
by giving the District of Columbia, more than a half a million of our
fellow Americans, a voting Member of Congress in the House of
Representatives and to, frankly and directly, overcome concerns of the
partisan impact of giving a House seat to the District because it tends
to vote Democratic, and correcting another injustice, saying that the
State of Utah, which came very close--less than 900 citizens--from
having another seat in the Congress in the House as a result of the
2000 census also gets a seat. So one for the District of Columbia, one
for Utah.
The situation is this: The residents of the Capital City of the
greatest democracy in the world do not have voting representation in
Congress. And yet, they have to pay the taxes we adopt--this is
taxation without representation--their budget uniquely has to be
approved by the Congress, and their sons and daughters today are
serving, and I add dying in disproportionate numbers, in Iraq and
Afghanistan in the war on terrorism, and yet they do not have a voting
representative in Congress to pass judgment on appropriations and other
matters related to that war.
It is time to end the injustice, to end the national embarrassment
that the citizens of this great Capital City do not have voting
representation in Congress.
I ask all my colleagues to vote for cloture. Do not let a filibuster
kill a voting rights act, as used to happen too often around here.
I have been honored to join as a cosponsor of this measure my dear
friend, a great Senator, Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah.
I yield the remaining time we have to Senator Hatch.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, we have had a lot of people talking about,
oh, let's not do this because it is unconstitutional. I want everybody
to know there are conservative and liberal advocates on both sides of
this issue with regard to the District of Columbia and, I might add, I
think most people will know Utah was not treated fairly after the last
census. Naturally, Senator Bennett and I are for adding a seat in Utah.
Let's go back to that point. There are good people on both sides of
this issue, Democrats and Republicans on each side. There are decent
arguments on each side of this issue, although I think our side has
been given short shrift by some. And those who are so sure this is
unconstitutional, that which the distinguished Senator from
Connecticut, Mr. Lieberman, and I have been advocating, then why do
they fear the expedited provision in this bill that will get us to the
Supreme Court of the United States of America in what would be a very
appropriate decision on who is right and who is wrong in this matter?
We all know the argument that we should do this as a constitutional
amendment is not a valid argument. It is a good argument, but the fact
is it will never pass that way. There are 600,000 people in the
District of Columbia, never contemplated by the Founders of this
country to be without the right to vote. They are the only people in
this country who do not have a right to vote for their own
representative in the House of Representatives. This bill would remedy
that situation.
Those who argue it would be a presage to getting two Senators don't
know the people in America or in this body. The fact is that Senators
are elected by States with equal rights of suffrage. This
representative, should this bill pass both Houses of Congress, would
represent 600,000 people as the people's representative in the House of
Representatives, which is what that is supposed to be.
I might add, Supreme Court decision after Supreme Court decision has
said the Congress has plenary power in this area, unique power in this
area. It says Congress has authority over the District of Columbia. If
Congress wants to give the District of Columbia a representative,
Congress has the power to do so, and I believe the Supreme Court would
uphold it. I do not believe the Supreme Court would uphold an attempt
to try and get two Senators for something that is clearly not a State
requiring equal rights of suffrage.
I compliment my good friend from Connecticut, Senator Lieberman, for
the hard battle he waged and for those in the House who worked so hard
on this issue. I hope we can at least debate this matter. All we are
doing today is deciding whether we are even going to allow a debate to
occur. My gosh, when has the Senate been afraid to debate a
constitutional issue as important as this one? This is an important
issue. We are prepared to debate. We are prepared to see what happens.
We know if it passes, it is going to have expedited review by the
Supreme Court. We are prepared to accept whatever the Supreme Court
decides to do, and those who say this is unconstitutional, per se,
should not be afraid then. I am willing to go to the Supreme Court, and
I will abide by whatever the Supreme Court says. I believe the Supreme
Court would uphold this legislation because there are 600,000 people
without a right to vote for their own representative.
I used to be opposed to this issue. The more I studied it, the more I
agreed with the conservative and liberal constitutional proponents and
the more I have become an advocate for it, and I am going to continue
to do so. I hope we can at least debate this matter and then,
hopefully, get it out of this body and go to the Supreme Court and have
them finally decide what should be done.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks time?
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order
for the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The Senator from Maine is recognized.
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President. I rise to speak in support of S. 1257,
the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2007. It is a
measure introduced by Senator Lieberman and Senator Hatch and favorably
reported by the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs.
After carefully considering the constitutional issues, I have come to
believe, on balance, that S. 1257 is a legitimate mechanism for
providing voting representation in the U.S. House of Representatives
for the 600,000 Americans who live in the District of Columbia--
citizens who serve in the Armed Forces, pay Federal taxes, participate
in Federal programs, and support a local government overseen by
Congress--yet who cannot choose a representative with voting rights for
the House that meets in their midst.
S. 1257 would also correct an inequity affecting the State of Utah.
That State fell just short of qualifying for an additional House seat
in the last apportionment--a margin that likely would have disappeared
had the census counted the thousands of Mormons who were out of State
performing their religious duty as missionaries.
As the Senate considers this legislation, much hinges on our view of
the powers assigned, and the rights protected, by our Constitution.
Those

[[Page S11627]]

powers and rights were discussed at length in the May 15 hearing that
our committee conducted on this bill.
We heard vigorous debate from legal experts on whether the enclave
clause of the Constitution enables Congress to provide voting
representation in the House for the District of Columbia--as a
corollary of its exclusive power of legislation in Federal enclaves,
including the District. We also heard an impassioned argument that the
bill would pass constitutional muster purely on its merits as an equal-
representation measure consistent with court rulings in civil rights
cases.
I recognize that other lawmakers, and some constitutional scholars,
have expressed sincere doubts about this measure. For those who have
such concerns, the bill now offers a powerful safeguard. During our
June markup, the committee adopted my amendment providing for expedited
judicial review of this legislation in the event of a legal challenge.
Thus, the new law's legitimacy could be determined promptly by our
Federal courts.
My colleagues on the committee also adopted an amendment that I
proposed concerning the scope and implications of the bill. The text
now carries an explicit statement that the District of Columbia shall
not be considered a State for purposes of representation in the Senate.
This is an important distinction. Our Constitution links House
representation to population, but it links Senate representation to
statehood. The residents of the District of Columbia are Americans
entitled to House representation, but they are not residents of an
entity admitted to the Union as a State. The language added by the
committee simply clarifies that the bill does not contemplate or
provide support for a legislative grant of Senate representation.
The District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2007 is a
carefully crafted measure that provides for speedy review of any legal
challenge. The bill's 21 sponsors and cosponsors span the liberal-to-
conservative spectrum and includes two independent Senators, as well as
Republicans and Democrats--eloquent testimony to the fact that this is
not a partisan measure.
I urge my colleagues to support S. 1257, a simple matter of
fundamental fairness for American citizens.
Mr. President, I wish to make a final point and say again that there
are legitimate arguments about the constitutionality of the measure
that is before us, and that is why, when it was before the Homeland
Security Committee, I offered an amendment which is incorporated into
the bill to allow for expedited judicial review of its
constitutionality. I suggest to my colleagues that we should proceed
with this measure. If, in fact, it fails on constitutional grounds,
that is up to the courts. But today we can stand for an important
principle of providing a vote to the residents of the District of
Columbia.
I hope my colleagues will allow this bill to go forward, and I urge
their support of this measure.
Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of S. 1257, the
District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act. This bill would provide
the 580,000 residents of our Nation's Capital the voting representation
in the House of Representatives that is so long overdue. It would also
give the State of Utah a temporary at-large seat in the House through
the next reapportionment.
Today's vote presents us the opportunity to grant District of
Columbia residents the voice in ``the people's House'' that other
Americans possess. It is time to remember the cry of our Founders that
``taxation without representation is tyranny'' and end the
discriminatory treatment of our Capital City's residents.
District of Columbia citizens pay Federal taxes, and they deserve
their full say in determining the direction of our country. They should
have as much influence on the House and Senate floors as any other
American over the policies that shape this Nation: our Tax Code, our
involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, and our laws affecting Social
Security, health care, and childcare.
The right to representation is a basic civil right, and this is no
less than a moral issue. Since coming to Congress, I have supported
full voting representation for the citizens of the District of Columbia
that would comprise one voting member of the House of Representatives
and two Senators. The authors of this bill have, after much
deliberation, crafted a compromise that they believe can pass both
Chambers and be sent to President Bush for his signature. I will
support that compromise with the hope that one day we will be able to
enact legislation providing full representation to the District.
Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today we will vote on whether or not to take
up one of the most important pieces of civil rights and voting rights
legislation the Senate will consider in this Congress: the DC House
Voting Rights Act of 2007. After months of careful consideration by the
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, floor action
on this bill has been blocked by a filibuster. We will soon see if
there are sufficient votes to break that filibuster and enable it to
move forward. We are in this procedural position because some of my
Republican colleagues have persistently refused to even allow the
Senate to take up and debate this measure, insisting on throwing up
procedural roadblocks all along the way. I urge my colleagues to vote
to bring this bill to the floor, and if that effort succeeds, to
support its adoption.
There is nothing more fundamental to the vitality and endurance of a
democracy of the people, by the people, and for the people than the
people's right to vote. In the words of Thomas Paine: ``The right of
voting for representatives is the primary right by which other rights
are protected.'' It is, in fact, the right on which all others in our
democracy depend. The Constitution guarantees it, and the U.S. Supreme
Court has repeatedly underscored that it is one of our most precious
and fundamental rights as citizens.
Although not all Americans were entitled to vote in the early days of
the Republic, virtually all legal restrictions on the franchise have
since been eliminated, including those based on race, sex, wealth,
property ownership, and marital status. Americans living in the
Nation's Capital also deserve to have voting representation in the body
that makes their laws, taxes them, and can call them to war.
Even with most explicit barriers to voting removed, we still have a
way to go before we get to the point where all Americans are able to
participate without obstacle in our elections, and with confidence in
the voting systems they use. In the 2000 Presidential election, 51.2
percent of the eligible American electorate voted. And although in the
2004 Presidential election voting participation reached its highest
level since 1968, only 60.7 percent of eligible Americans voted. That
dropped back down, in the 2006 off-year elections, to just over 40
percent. We should do everything we can to strengthen voter
registration efforts and to move the election reform process forward in
this Congress, and at the same time to extend voting representation to
the nearly 600,000 people--hard-working, taxpaying U.S. citizens who
fight for our country and serve on juries and fulfill their other civic
duties--who live within the borders of the District of Columbia.
I know that some opponents argue that the reasons the Founders made
the Nation's Capital a separate district, rather than locate it within
a State, remain sound, and therefore we should not tinker with their
work, even at the cost of continued disenfranchisement of DC's
citizens. That argument ignores the fundamental commitment we all must
have to extending the franchise to all Americans. And it ignores the
fact that article I of the Constitution explicitly gives Congress
legislative authority over the District ``in all cases whatsoever.''
The courts have over time described this power as ``extraordinary and
plenary'' and ``full and unlimited,'' and decades of legislative and
judicial precedents make clear that the simple word ``states'' in
article I (which provides that the House of Representatives ``shall be
composed of members chosen . . . by the people of the several
states''), does not trump, Congress's legislative authority to grant
representation in the House to citizens of the District.
I know that Senator Hatch, Lieberman, and others have already
thoroughly covered this important legal ground, so I will not belabor
the history. But when even conservative legal scholars--from Judges Ken

[[Page S11628]]

Starr and Patricia Wald to former Assistant Attorney General Viet
Dinh--have done exhaustive legal analyses which outline the positive
case for Congress ceding representational rights to citizens of the
District, you know there is a strong case to be made. In any event, it
is clear to me that these important constitutional questions should
ultimately be resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court, and enactment of this
bill would enable us to do just that. If opponents of the bill are so
certain of their constitutional arguments, they should, it seems to me,
allow those arguments to be tested in the full light of day, in the
courts, and resolved once and for all. The bill provides for expedited
consideration of appropriate court challenges. If it were to be enacted
and then struck down because of constitutional infirmities, it would
then be clear that a constitutional amendment is the only viable
alternative left to DC citizens.
This is the latest in a series of proposals to extend full rights of
representation to voters in the District. In 1978, with overwhelming
bipartisan support, both Chambers of Congress passed the DC voting
rights constitutional amendment, which would have given District
residents voting representation in the House and the Senate, by two-
thirds majority in each Chamber. The amendment required 38 States to
ratify it, but it fell short. In 1993, the House voted to give partial
voting representation to the DC delegate in the ``Committee of the
Whole'' of the House, unless her vote actually determined the outcome,
in which case it would not be counted. That is obviously no real voting
``right'' at all, if it can be taken away when it really counts.
There have been many differing proposals over the years to extend the
right to vote to DC citizens, from constitutional amendments to
statehood legislation to retrocession proposals. Since many Americans
would be shocked to learn that something as basic as voting
representation is now withheld from certain of our citizens, and it is
coming in a particular historical context in which Utah is poised to
gain an additional House seat due to its growing population, let me
describe briefly what this bill would actually do.
First, it would create two new permanent seats in the House of
Representatives, one for the District of Columbia and the other for
Utah. An election for the seat in DC would be held in 2008 and the new
representative would be sworn in for the 111th Congress. The bill
explicitly states that DC can only be considered one district and
receive only one seat in all future censuses.
It also repeals the District of Columbia delegate and other related
language once a full voting representative is sworn into the 111th
Congress. Finally, it would allow the State of Utah to create a Fourth
District, not an at-large seat, using census data from 2000. The
election for that seat would be held in 2008. This seat would be
guaranteed to Utah for the 111th Congress and the 112th Congress until
another census is done and new districts are made in 2012. It also
explicitly says that the District should not be considered a State for
the purpose of representation in the Senate; that question is left for
another day.
Mr. President, as my colleague Senator Hatch has observed, there are
really two fundamental questions here for the Senate to consider. The
first is the constitutional question about whether Congress may enact
legislation to address this issue. The second is an essentially
political question about whether we should enact such legislation. I
have briefly addressed the first. On the second, I think there really
should not be much of a debate. Citizens of the District, a majority of
them African-Americans, who fulfill all of the duties of citizenship,
ought to have the right to vote and be represented in Congress as
decisions are made about their taxes, about war and peace, or about any
of the myriad other questions that Congress faces every day.
This is not a perfect bill. There are provisions of it that some
oppose, and that I might have drawn differently. But it is an
exquisitely balanced compromise, and I believe it deserves our support.
I commend Chairman Lieberman and Ranking Minority Member Collins for
developing the bill, and I congratulate the majority leader for
bringing it to the floor today. We know it enjoys the support of a
large majority of Americans--over 80 percent in national polls support
the proposition that DC residents should be represented in Congress. I
hope it will garner the broad support in the Senate it deserves. I urge
my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote aye to enable this
measure to come to the floor, and to support it when it does.
Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today's debate involves one of the most
important issues in our democracy. Dr. Martin Luther King called the
right to vote ``civil right number one.'' Yet hundreds of thousands of
Americans who live in the Nation's Capital have been denied an equal
voice in our democracy. Citizens in the District of Columbia live in
the very shadow of the Capitol Building, but they have no
representative who can vote their interests within these halls. It is
long past time for us to finally correct this basic wrong.
I commend Senators Lieberman, Hatch, and Bennett for their strong
leadership on this legislation.
Since the Revolutionary War, ``No taxation without representation''
has been a fundamental American principle. It is a famous phrase in our
history. James Otis said it first in a historic speech in Massachusetts
in 1763, and it was so inspiring that John Adams later said, ``Then and
there, the child `independence' was born.''
Yet more than two centuries later, citizens who live in the Nation's
Capital still bear the unfair burden of taxation without
representation. The more than half a million District of Columbia
residents pay significant Federal taxes each year. In fact, DC
residents have the second-highest per capita tax burden in the Nation.
Yet they have no say in how Federal taxes are spent, and they have no
role in writing the Nation's tax laws.
Residents of the District have fought and died in every war to defend
American interests. Two hundred thirty seven DC residents died in the
Vietnam war. Today, while we debate whether DC citizens deserve a vote
in Congress, many brave Americans who live in the District are fighting
for voting rights in Iraq. Since the beginning of the current wars in
Iraq and Afghanistan, 2813 DC residents--2110 members of the Active
Duty military and 703 members of the Reserve Forces--have been deployed
in Iraq and Afghanistan. In the course of these conflicts, 28 DC
residents have been wounded or killed.
Citizens of the District of Columbia have no voice when Congress
considers whether to go to war. The brave soldiers from the Nation's
Capital have no representation in Congress when the votes are counted
on funding levels for our troops and other issues relating to the war.
When Congress debates assistance to war veterans or considers how to
improve conditions at Walter Reed Hospital, the patriotic veterans who
live in this city have no vote. It is unconscionable.
If we are for democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan, we should certainly
be for democracy in the District of Columbia as well.
I have long been a strong supporter of DC representation in Congress.
In 1978, I worked with Walter Fauntroy and many others on a
constitutional amendment to correct this basic injustice. We finally
passed the constitutional amendment in Congress, but we weren't able to
get it ratified by a sufficient number of States to take effect.
Because we weren't successful then, the issue remains just as urgent
today.
Fortunately, a constitutional amendment isn't the only option. The
Constitution's District clause provides another, legal means for
providing citizens of the District of Columbia a vote in Congress. As
respected constitutional scholars have made clear, article I, section 8
of the Constitution gives Congress the authority ``to exercise
exclusive Legislation, in all Cases whatsoever, over such District'' of
Columbia. The Supreme Court has ruled that Congress's exclusive
authority over the District of Columbia is broad and ``national in the
highest sense.''
Some have questioned the constitutionality of this approach. Although
I supported a constitutional amendment in the past, I disagree that a
constitutional amendment is the only valid option. Nothing in the
Constitution explicitly denies residents of this city a

[[Page S11629]]

voice in Congress. Judges Patricia Wald and Kenneth Starr, both of whom
served on the respected U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, have
studied this approach to giving the District a vote in the House of
Representatives. Both have concluded that it is constitutional. As they
and others have noted, the Supreme Court has recognized that Congress
has the power to treat District of Columbia citizens as citizens of a
State in other contexts. For instance, the District is treated as a
State for purposes of diversity jurisdiction in Federal courts,
although article III, section 2 of the Constitution provides for
diversity jurisdiction in suits ``between citizens of different
States.''
It is impossible to believe that the Founding Fathers, having just
finished a war to ensure democratic representation in America, would
then insist on denying that representation to citizens living in the
capital of their new Nation. Granting the District a vote in Congress
is consistent with the spirit, as well as the letter, of our
Constitution.
Even if you disagree about the bill's constitutionality, we should
not filibuster this important measure. Surely even my colleagues who
have a different view of the constitutionality can agree that this
issue is important enough to deserve an up-or-down vote. The Senate's
filibuster of the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965 was one of its
darkest days. We should not repeat that mistake now.
This is not a Republican or a Democratic issue. When we passed the
constitutional amendment in 1978, we had strong support from
Republicans like Senators Goldwater, Dole, and Thurmond, in addition to
Democrats. Today, the bill has strong bipartisan support in both the
House and Senate. That is because this issue is so obviously an issue
of simple justice.
The Senate Judiciary Committee recently held a hearing to celebrate
the 50th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act of 1957. We heard moving
testimony in favor of this bill from Congressman John Lewis, our
distinguished colleague in the House of Representatives and a leader in
the continuing struggle for equal voting rights. At the age of only 23,
Congressman Lewis headed the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee
and helped organize a march on Washington. He and others were brutally
assaulted during the fateful voting rights march at the Edmund Pettis
Bridge, but their sacrifices helped inspire the progress that was to
come.
Congressman Lewis reminded us of the sacrifices of those who gave
their lives for equal voting rights in this country, and called on us
to pass the DC Voting Rights Act. He reminded us of our obligation to
give the District a vote in Congress.
I urge my colleagues to vote for cloture on this important bill and
then vote for final passage of the bill so that we can finally correct
this historic wrong and to do it on our watch.
Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, S. 1257, the District of Columbia
House Voting Rights Act of 2007, is an important and consequential
bill.
The bill before us would increase the 435-seat House of
Representatives to 437 seats, by providing one seat for a voting member
in DC, which is predominately Democratic, and one additional seat for
Utah, which is predominately Republican. And it does it in a way that
doesn't give advantage to one political party over the other.
The time has come to give the District a voice and a vote in the
House of Representatives.
I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation.
The legislation is sponsored by Senator Joseph Lieberman, chairman of
the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee; Senator Orrin
Hatch; and my distinguished ranking member on the Rules Committee,
Senator Robert Bennett. I am a cosponsor this legislation.
The District of Columbia occupies an interesting and unique place in
the United States:
It covers just 61.4 square miles, sandwiched between Virginia and
Maryland: Yet with more than 580,000 residents, the population of the
District surpasses that of the entire State of Wyoming. The District of
Columbia is the seat of American government. The U.S. Congress
determines the laws for the District; the Federal Government impacts
the District's transportation system, health system, and police
function. DC residents pay the second highest per capita Federal income
taxes in the country. And District residents have sacrificed their
lives defending our Nation. During World War I, World War II, Vietnam,
the Korean war, and today in Iraq, they have fought for our democracy.
Despite all this, DC residents have no vote in how the Federal
Government operates.
``No taxation without representation,'' the colonists told King
George in the late 1700s. We cannot allow this lack of representation
to continue during the 21st century.
Today, the District of Columbia has a nonvoting representative in
Congress--Representative Eleanor Holmes Norton. She has been vocal in
representing the interests of the residents of DC, but she is unable to
cast a vote on the House floor to ensure that voice is heard. This
makes little sense.
We now have an opportunity to change this and to strike the right
balance while doing it. The bill before us would add two seats to the
House of Representatives, one for the District of Columbia and one for
Utah.
Utah was next in line for a fourth congressional district
representation in the House, according to 2000 population census data.
At that time, Utah was only 856 residents away from becoming eligible
for an additional seat.
So this legislation strikes the appropriate balance by allowing
additional representation for both DC and Utah without disadvantaging
either national political party.
In the last 200 years, Congress has not granted House representation
to the District of Columbia by statute. Whether such a Federal law is
constitutional has never been before the courts. As a result, critics
of the legislation have argued that a bill providing for a vote for the
District representative is unconstitutional. However, a bipartisan
group of academics, judges, and lawyers argue that Congress has the
authority and historical precedents to enact Federal law, and I agree
with their view.
The Constitution vests in Congress broad power to regulate national
elections and plenary authority over DC under the District clause,
article I, section 8, clause 17. This clause permits Congress wide
discretion to grant rights to the District of Columbia, including for
the purposes of congressional representation.
From 1790 to 1800, Congress allowed District residents to vote in
congressional elections in Virginia and Maryland. This was allowed not
because they were residents of those States but because Congress acted
within its District clause authority.
Constitutional scholars from the right and the left, the most notable
conservatives being Judge Kenneth Star and Professor Viet Dinh, believe
this legislation is constitutional. These scholars reference the
sweeping authority of the District clause, which provides that ``The
Congress shall have power . . . to exercise exclusive legislation in
all cases whatsoever'' over the District of Columbia.
In addition to believing that Congress can pass this legislation, I
believe there are strong reasons why it should pass this legislation.
DC is affected, perhaps more directly than any other U.S.
jurisdiction, by the actions of Congress.
Citizens of the District, rich and poor, work in this town and work
in the industries of law, policy, business, tourism, academia and
medicine. They pay high taxes; they face the challenges of living in
one of the major cities in the United States.
This legislation would provide DC with permanent voting rights for
the first time in over 200 years.
From the Boston Tea Party and ``no taxation without representation''
to the suffragettes and struggles over voting rights in the 1960s, the
goal of American society has been to bring a voice to citizens who were
voiceless.
Voting is the voice of democracy.
This political limbo that Congress has placed on the District has run
its course.
It is time to give the District a voice and a vote in the House of
Representatives.
This important step can not only right this wrong but can do it
without causing partisan rancor or disadvantage to any party. What is
at stake

[[Page S11630]]

here is nothing less than a fundamental fairness voting issue.
This bill is consistent with the historical precedents of Congress's
role in protecting and preserving the right to vote, regardless of
color or class, age or gender, disability or original language, party
or precinct, and geography domestic or foreign.
It is the right thing to do, and the 21st century is the right times
to do it.
I urge my colleagues to join me in taking up and passing this bill on
a majority vote in the full Senate.
(At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to
be printed in the Record.)
Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, in 1978, as the majority leader of
the United States Senate, I strongly supported and voted for H.J. Res.
554, a joint resolution that proposed amending the Constitution to
provide for representation of the District of Columbia in Congress.
Unfortunately, over the next 7 years, that resolution, which had passed
the Senate by a vote of 67 to 32, failed to obtain the approval of the
38 States it needed for ratification under Article V of the
Constitution.
Today, the Senate seeks to obtain the same commendable goal of
granting voting rights to representatives of the District of Columbia.
The Senate seeks to do so by passing S. 1257. However, Art. 1, Sec. 2
of the Constitution states that the House of Representatives shall be
composed of Members chosen by the people of the several States. The
Constitution does not refer to the people of the District of Columbia
in this context. While I recognize that others believe that Art.1, Sec.
8 of the Constitution authorizes the Congress to ``exercise exclusive
legislation'' over the District, including legislation that would grant
the District's representatives voting rights, the historical intent of
the Founders on this point is unclear.
I oppose S. 1257, because I doubt that our Nation's Founding Fathers
ever intended that the Congress should be able to change the text of
the Constitution by passing a simple bill. The ability to amend the
Constitution in only two ways was provided with particularity in
Article V of the Constitution for a reason. If we wish to grant
representatives of the citizens of the District of Columbia full voting
rights, let us do so, once again, the proper way: by passing a
resolution to amend the Constitution consistent with its own terms.
Now is certainly not the time for us to make it easier, rather than
more difficult, to alter the text of the Constitution. We serve with a
President who already believes that he can ignore the rule of law by
issuing a simple directive, a signing statement, or an order that
undermines the delicately balanced separation of powers, which the
Framers so painstakingly included in the Constitution. A series of
Federal judges is now confirming what many of us have known from the
start: that this Administration believes it can write 200 years of
civil liberties out of the Constitution with a simple stroke of a pen.
We all seek the same laudable goal: to provide full Congressional
representation and voting rights for the citizens of the District of
Columbia. But let us accomplish that goal in the way the way the
Founders intended--by amending the Constitution. Let us support a
resolution to amend the Constitution that would enhance, rather than
undermine, the rights of the 600,000 residents of the District of
Columbia who seek a stronger voice in their government.
Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, Our Nation was born out of a struggle
against taxation without representation. Yet even as we endeavor to
promote democracy around the world, it is alarming that we deny our own
American citizens who live in the District of Columbia the right to
representation in Congress. The nearly 600,000 residents of the
District of Columbia have been denied voting representation in Congress
for over 200 years. But this is not just an injustice perpetrated on DC
residents. Their disenfranchisement tarnishes our democracy as a whole.
The right to be represented in the national legislature is fundamental
to our core American values, and for that reason, I am proud to
cosponsor the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2007.
There is no principled basis for the disenfranchisement of the
District's residents. After the Nation's Capital was founded, citizens
who lived in the District were represented by congressmen from Maryland
or Virginia. They were able to make themselves heard in Congress. It
was only in 1801 that Congress chose to strip the District of voting
rights. As a result of this decision, for more than 200 years, the
District's residents have been taxed like other Americans but have been
denied a vote in the Nation's legislature. It is Congress that took
away the District's representation. After two centuries, it is time for
us to fix that mistake. The District's residents deserve a voice in how
the Nation is governed.
The people of this city are proud Americans. They pay their taxes.
They serve with honor and distinction in our military. But yet we deny
them the ability to fully participate in our democracy. The legislation
before us goes a long way towards righting this wrong by giving the
residents of the District representation in Congress that is long
overdue.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to express my strong support for
the legislation before us today to ensure that citizens of the District
of Columbia and the State of Utah are properly represented in the U.S.
House of Representatives.
In the 1964 Wesberry v. Sanders case, Supreme Court Justice Hugo L.
Black wrote that ``no right is more precious in a free country than
that of having a voice in the election of those who make the laws under
which, as good citizens, we must live.'' The bill we are considering
today--S. 1257--serves this purpose. It would, for the first time, give
the citizens of the District of Columbia full voting representation in
the House of Representatives, while adding a fourth Congressional seat
for the state of Utah, based on updated population statistics from the
2000 Census.
I want to thank my good friends Senators Hatch and Bennett for
greatly increasing the possibility of success this year with their
support for this effort. Earlier in the year, the three of us
introduced S. 1257 as a compromise that would move us beyond the
partisan stalemates of the past that have denied the citizens of DC
their most precious right.
I must also thank DC Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton and Congressman
Tom Davis, whose persistence and bipartisan cooperation has brought us
to where we are today. It was they who forged the original compromise
that passed the House in April by a vote of 241-177 and is now before
us here in the Senate.
Notwithstanding the remarkable service of Congresswoman Norton, the
citizens of the District of Columbia deserve more than a non-voting
delegate in the House. They deserve a representative who can vote not
only in committee, as Delegate Norton now does, but also on the House
floor, which she is barred from doing.
The fact that District residents have been without voting
representation in Congress since the District was formed more than 200
years ago is not only a national embarrassment, it is a grave injustice
and at complete odds with the democratic principles on which our great
nation was founded. America is the only democracy in the world that
denies the citizens of its capital city this most essential right.
And yet, the people of DC have been the direct target of terrorist
attacks but they have no voting power over how the federal government
provides homeland security. They have given their lives to protect our
country in foreign wars--including the current one--but have no say in
our foreign policy. They pay taxes, like every other American. In fact,
they pay more: Per capita, District residents have the second-highest
federal tax obligation in the country. 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. So when Congress fails to pass
appropriations bills before the beginning of the new fiscal year, the
District's budget is essentially frozen. And yet DC has no say in our
federal appropriations process.
Giving the residents of DC voting representation in the House is not
only

[[Page S11631]]

the right and just thing to do; it has popular support. A poll
conducted by the Washington Post earlier this year found that 61
percent of the nation believes it is time to end centuries of bias
against the District by giving its citizens voting representation in
Congress.
It helps to take a look back in history to locate the original source
of this inequity. In 1800, when the nation's capital was established as
the District of Columbia, an apparent oversight left the area's
residents without Congressional representation. Maryland and Virginia
ceded land for the capital in 1788 and 1789 respectively, but it took
another 11 years for Congress to establish the District. In the
interim, residents continued to vote either in Maryland or Virginia,
but Congress withdrew those voting rights once the District was
established. Apparently by omission, Congress neglected to establish
new voting rights for the citizens of the new District.
Whatever the reason for this oversight, it has no relevance to
reality or national principles today. To have your voice heard by your
government is central to a functioning democracy and fundamental to a
free society.
The Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee held a
hearing on the bill May 15, during which we heard compelling testimony
on the need for and constitutionality of S. 1257 from legal scholars,
civil rights leaders, and fellow members of Congress. The bill was
reported to the full Senate on June 13 by a bipartisan vote of 9-1.
The primary argument against the bill that we heard at our hearing
was the question of constitutionality. Opponents cite Article I,
Section 2, of the Constitution which states that the House ``shall be
composed of members chosen . . . by the people of the several states.''
But those words were not written in a vacuum. Just six sections later,
the framers of the Constitution gave Congress authority to ``exercise
exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever'' regarding the District.
Numerous legal scholars, including Judge Ken Starr and former Assistant
Attorney General Viet Dinh, both of whom have testified before Congress
on this issue--said this broad authority is sufficient to give District
residents full House representation.
Congress has repeatedly used this authority to treat the District of
Columbia as a state. In 1940, the Judiciary Act of 1789 was revised to
broaden the definition of diversity jurisdiction, which refers to the
authority of the federal courts to hear cases where the parties are
from different states, to include the District of Columbia. This
revision upheld by the courts when challenged.
The courts have also found that Congress has the authority to impose
federal taxes on the District; to provide a jury trial to residents of
the District; and to include the District in interstate commerce
regulation. These are rights and responsibilities granted to states in
the Constitution, yet the District Clause has allowed Congress to apply
them to DC.
We should also remember that Congress has granted voting rights to
Americans abroad in their last state of residence regardless of whether
they are citizens of that state, pay taxes in that state, or have any
intent to return to that state. Clearly, the courts have supported
broader interpretations of Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution.
If, after listening to these arguments, you still doubt the
constitutionality of this legislation, I hope I can persuade you to
support it because it is the right thing to do, and we can let the
courts resolve the constitutional dispute at a later date, once and for
all. S. 1257 requires expedited judicial consideration of any
appropriate court challenge, so any question of constitutional
interpretation will be answered promptly.
Finally, allow me to reassure skeptics that in no way does this bill
open the door to granting the District voting representation in the
Senate, as some have contended. In fact, language was added in our
Committee markup explicitly stating that DC, and I quote here, ``shall
not be considered a state for purposes of representation in the United
States Senate.'' End of quote. It can't get any clearer than that.
The vote we are about to cast will decide whether the Senate should
proceed to the bill. It is a vote on whether this legislation is worthy
of Senate consideration. No matter where you stand on the merits of
this bill, surely you must agree that a bill on voting representation
and equal rights deserves consideration by the United States Senate.
The Senate has not filibustered a civil rights bill since the summer of
1964 when it spent 57 days including six Saturdays on the Civil Rights
Act of 1964. Let us together assure the American public that the days
of filibustering voting rights bills are over.
The House has acted. It is now time for the Senate to do the same.
The legislation introduced in both the House and the Senate is an
expression of fairness and bipartisanship, an example of what we can do
when we work across party lines as the good people of this nation have
so often asked us to do.
Members from both parties and both houses have finally come together
to find a solution to break the stalemates of the past that have denied
DC residents equal representation in the Congress of the United States.
Now is the time to give the residents of the District what they so
richly deserve and that is the same civic entitlement that every other
federal tax-paying American citizen enjoys, no matter where he or she
lives. By giving the citizens of the District of Columbia a genuine
vote in the House, we will ensure not only that their voices will
finally be fully heard. We will be following the imperatives of our
national democratic values.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks time?
Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

Cloture Motion

The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. Under the previous order
and pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending
cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

Cloture Motion

We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the
provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the motion to
proceed to Calendar No. 257, S. 1257, a bill to provide the
District of Columbia a voting seat, and for other purposes.
Harry Reid, Joe Lieberman, Patrick Leahy, Russell D.
Feingold, Benjamin L. Cardin, Robert P. Casey, Jr.,
Bernard Sanders, B.A. Mikulski, Byron L. Dorgan, Patty
Murray, Dianne Feinstein, Mary Landrieu, Kent Conrad,
Robert Menendez, Mark Pryor, Ken Salazar, Jim Webb.

The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum
call has been waived.
The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the
motion to proceed to 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, shall be brought to a close?
The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber
desiring to vote?
Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Byrd)
is necessarily absent.
The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 57, nays 42, as follows:

[Rollcall Vote No. 339 Leg.]

YEAS--57

Akaka
Bayh
Bennett
Biden
Bingaman
Boxer
Brown
Cantwell
Cardin
Carper
Casey
Clinton
Coleman
Collins
Conrad
Dodd
Dorgan
Durbin
Feingold
Feinstein
Harkin
Hatch
Inouye
Johnson
Kennedy
Kerry
Klobuchar
Kohl
Landrieu
Lautenberg
Leahy
Levin
Lieberman
Lincoln
Lugar
McCaskill
Menendez
Mikulski
Murray
Nelson (FL)
Nelson (NE)
Obama
Pryor
Reed
Reid
Rockefeller
Salazar
Sanders
Schumer
Snowe
Specter
Stabenow
Tester
Voinovich
Webb
Whitehouse
Wyden

[[Page S11632]]

NAYS--42

Alexander
Allard
Barrasso
Baucus
Bond
Brownback
Bunning
Burr
Chambliss
Coburn
Cochran
Corker
Cornyn
Craig
Crapo
DeMint
Dole
Domenici
Ensign
Enzi
Graham
Grassley
Gregg
Hagel
Hutchison
Inhofe
Isakson
Kyl
Lott
Martinez
McCain
McConnell
Murkowski
Roberts
Sessions
Shelby
Smith
Stevens
Sununu
Thune
Vitter
Warner

NOT VOTING--1

Byrd

The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 57 and the nays are
42. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. BENNETT. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the DC voting
rights bill that the Senate just voted on. I am disappointed that this
measure failed to receive the necessary 60 votes in order for the bill
to be considered.
This is a bill that seeks to protect the most fundamental right of
citizens in our democracy the right to vote. Different generations in
our Nation's history have struggled to gain and safeguard this
universal right--from the 15th amendment, which extended the right to
vote to newly freed slaves, to the 19th amendment, which guaranteed the
right to women, and finally to the Voting Rights Act, which gave real
substance to voting laws that had been previously abused. Yet, as we
speak, this most basic right in a democracy is denied to the citizens
of the District of Columbia.
Our brave civil rights leaders sacrificed too much to ensure that
every American has the right to vote for us to tolerate the
disenfranchisement of the nearly 600,000 residents of the District of
Columbia. Those who live in our Nation's Capital pay taxes like other
Americans. They serve bravely in the Armed Forces to defend our country
like other Americans. They are called to sit on Federal juries like
other Americans. Yet they are not afforded a vote in Congress. Instead,
they are granted a nonvoting Delegate who can sit in the House of
Representatives and serve on committees but cannot cast a vote when
legislation comes to the floor.
As a community organizer in Chicago and as a civil rights attorney, I
learned that disenfranchisement can lead to disengagement from our
political system. In many parts of DC, you can look down the street and
see the dome of the U.S. Capitol. Yet so many of these streets couldn't
be more disconnected from their Government.
If we are to take seriously our claim to a government of, by, and for
the people, Washington shouldn't be just the seat of our Government,
but it also should reflect the core values and fundamental promise of
our democracy. Denying the right to vote to citizens who are equally
subject to the laws of this Nation undermines a central premise of our
representative Government. The right to vote belongs to every American,
regardless of race, creed, gender, or geography.
For these reasons, I fully support this important legislation.
Although today's vote is a disappointment, I will continue to work with
Mayor Fenty, Congresswoman Norton, and the sponsors of this bill until
the residents of the District of Columbia achieve full representation
in Congress.
Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. SMITH. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call
be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill). Without objection, it is so
ordered.

____________________