[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 1 (Tuesday, January 6, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S140-S144]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
By Mr. LIEBERMAN (for himself, Mr. Hatch, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Kennedy,
Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Sanders, Mr. Kerry, Mr. Durbin, and
Mr. Feingold):
S. 160. 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 am honored to have the opportunity
today, obviously early on this first day of this new session of
Congress, together with my colleague from Utah, Senator Hatch, to
introduce bipartisan legislation which will finally grant citizens of
our Nation's Capital, the District of Columbia, voting representation,
the proper representation to which they are entitled as citizens.
That representative voting would be in the House of Representatives.
This bill is entitled ``The District of Columbia House Voting Rights
Act of 2009.'' It is identical to a bill which Senator Hatch and I
introduced in the 110th Congress.
It would, for the first time, give citizens of the District of
Columbia full voting representation in the House while adding a fourth
congressional seat for the State of Utah based on population statistics
from the 2000 census in which they came very close. I think the people
of Utah would in fact say they deserve an additional seat.
This is the fifth session in which I have introduced legislation to
try to correct what I believe is a fundamental wrong--which is to deny
the citizens of our Nation's Capital voting representation in Congress.
I hope and believe and pray this is the session in which we are going
to get this done.
Last year, this bill passed overwhelmingly in the House by a vote of
271 to 177, but it fell three votes short of gaining cloture in the
Senate, though the vote in favor was 57 to 42. With a new Congress and
a new President who was in fact a cosponsor of this bill himself in the
last session of Congress, I am hopeful we can pass this legislation,
vital to the rights of nearly 600,000 Americans living in the District
of Columbia. Keep in mind the population of the District, though small
compared to many States, is roughly equal to the State populations of
Alaska, North Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming, all of which have, of
course, not only representation--that is, voting in the House--but two
Senators here. This deals only and exclusively with voting
representation in the House.
I want to particularly thank my dear friend and colleague, Senator
Orin Hatch, for his continued, principled, steadfast support of this
bill. He set aside partisanship to join me and others in trying to
right this historic wrong. I greatly admire his commitment to this
cause.
I am also proud to say Senators Leahy, Kennedy, Clinton, Dodd,
Sanders, Kerry, Durbin, and Feingold are today joining as original
cosponsors of this legislation.
Of course, I pay special honor and thanks to the DC Delegate, Eleanor
Holmes Norton, who has been a tireless champion of full representation
for the citizens of the District; of course, a tireless champion for
the citizens of the District generally. Delegate Norton is introducing
a similar bill in the House today.
I do this with a certain special personal pride because Delegate
Norton and I were at law school at Yale at the same time just a few
years ago. It probably would seem, to the casual observer, hard to
believe that we deny the residents of our Nation's Capital of the right
to have a voting representative in the House of Representatives. In
fact, public opinion polls have been taken over the years that ask
people: Do you think the residents of the District of Columbia have
voting representation in the House? Overwhelming, the American public
says: Of course they do, because they cannot believe there would be a
reason to deny them the representation.
In recent years, those who have opposed this legislation which would
correct a historic injustice have argued that congressional
representation is granted only to the States under the Constitution,
and therefore our legislation is unconstitutional.
With all respect, I believe that simply is not true. The Constitution
provides Congress with the authority to bestow voting rights on the
District. Multiple constitutional experts, spanning the full
ideological spectrum of left to right, including Ken Starr, former
judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals and former Solicitor General, and
Viet Dinh, former Assistant Attorney General, and many others have told
Congress and the public that this authority, which is, the authority to
grant representation in Congress, lies within the District Clause of
the Constitution, which is article I, section 8, where it states:
Congress has the power to exercise exclusive legislation in
all cases whatsoever over such District.
Congress has repeatedly used this authority to treat the District of
Columbia as a State for various public purposes. For example, as long
ago as 1940, the Judiciary Act of 1789 was revised to broaden diversity
jurisdiction to include citizens of the District, even though the
Constitution specifically provides that national courts may hear cases
``between citizens of different States.''
In other words, in that act, Congress said no, for purposes of
diversity of jurisdiction access to the courts, even though the
Constitution says that courts may hear cases between citizens of
different States. It would be incomprehensible that citizens of the
District of Columbia, because they happen to live in the Nation's
Capital, could not gain access to the Federal courts.
When challenged, this revision to the Judiciary Act was upheld as
constitutional by the Federal courts themselves. Furthermore, the
courts have found that Congress has the authority to impose national
taxes on the District, to provide a jury trial to residents of the
District, and to include
[[Page S142]]
the District in interstate commerce regulations.
These are rights and responsibilities that our Constitution grants to
States. Yet the District Clause has allowed Congress to apply those
rights and responsibilities to the District of Columbia because not to
do so would make residents of the District, or the District itself,
second class in their citizenship.
Treating the District as a State for purposes of voting
representation in Congress should be no different. The elections of
2008 saw a historic number of citizens carrying out their civic duty by
voting for their representatives in Congress. Unfortunately, for over
200 years, DC residents have been denied that most basic right.
According to a 2005 KRC Research poll, 82 percent of Americans, when
told that residents of the District do not have a voting representative
in Congress, say it is time to give that voting representation to the
citizens of our Nation's Capital.
This has very practical and just consequences. People of the District
have been the target directly of terrorist attacks, but they have no
vote on how the Federal Government provides for their homeland
security. Men and women citizens of the District have fought bravely in
our wars, in defense of our security and our freedom over the years,
many giving their lives in defense of our country. Yet citizens of the
District have no voting representation in Congress on the serious
questions of war and peace, veterans' benefits, and the like. Of
course, the citizens of the District of Columbia, per capita, pay
Federal income taxes at the second highest rate in the Nation. Yet they
have absolutely no voice, no voting representation, in setting tax
rates or in determining how the revenues raised by those taxes will be
spent.
This is plain wrong. The Supreme Court has said ``that no right is
more precious in a free country than that of having a vote in the
election of those who make the laws, under which, as good citizens, we
must live.''
We can no longer deny our fellow American citizens who happen to live
in the District of Columbia this precious right. With the United States
engaged now in two wars, a global war also against terrorists who
attacked us on 9/11/2001, with our country facing the most significant
economic crisis since the Great Depression, it is past time to grant
the vote to those citizens living in our Nation's Capital so their vote
can be rightfully heard as we debate these great and complex issues of
our time.
This matter has fallen, according to our rules, under the
jurisdiction of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs, which I am privileged to chair. I hope we will be
able to take it up quickly. It is my intention to consider this
legislation at the first markup of our committee in the session, and
then to bring it to the floor as quickly as possible with a high sense
of optimism that on this occasion, if there is another filibuster that
we will have, with the help of the new Members of the Senate, more than
60 votes necessary to close it off, and at least have a vote on this
question of fundamental rights for 600,000 of our fellow Americans.
I want to submit not only an original copy of the bill to the clerk,
but also for the Record a statement from Senator Hatch, which I ask
unanimous consent to appear as if read.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that 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. 160
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 2009''.
SEC. 2. TREATMENT OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AS CONGRESSIONAL
DISTRICT.
(a) Congressional District and No Senate Representation.--
(1) 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.
(2) No representation provided in senate.--The District of
Columbia shall not be considered a State for purposes of
representation in the United States Senate.
(b) Conforming Amendments Relating to Apportionment of
Members of House of Representatives.--
(1) Inclusion of single district of columbia member in
reapportionment of members among states.--Section 22 of the
Act entitled ``An Act to provide for the fifteenth and
subsequent decennial censuses and to provide for
apportionment of Representatives in Congress'', approved June
28, 1929 (2 U.S.C. 2a), is amended by adding at the end the
following new subsection:
``(d) This section shall apply with respect to the District
of Columbia in the same manner as this section applies to a
State, except that the District of Columbia may not receive
more than one Member under any reapportionment of Members.''.
(2) Clarification of determination of number of
presidential electors on basis of 23rd amendment.--Section 3
of title 3, United States Code, is amended by striking ``come
into office;'' and inserting the following: ``come into
office (subject to the twenty-third article of amendment to
the Constitution of the United States in the case of the
District of Columbia);''.
SEC. 3. INCREASE IN MEMBERSHIP OF HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
(a) Permanent Increase in Number of Members.--Effective
with respect to the 112th 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 112th
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 112th Congress
and the general election for the Representative from the
District of Columbia for 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
112th 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.
(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,''.
[[Page S143]]
(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).
(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.
(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.
SEC. 6. NONSEVERABILITY OF PROVISIONS AND NONAPPLICABILITY.
(a) Nonseverability.--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.
(b) Nonapplicability.--Nothing in the Act shall be
construed to affect the first reapportionment occurring after
the regular decennial census conducted for 2010 if this Act
has not taken effect.
SEC. 7. JUDICIAL REVIEW.
If any action is brought 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.
Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, as I did in the last Congress, I am
cosponsoring the legislation introduced today by the Senator from
Connecticut to provide a House seat for the District of Columbia and an
additional House seat for Utah.
Representation and suffrage are so central to the American system of
self-government that America's founders warned that limiting suffrage
would risk another revolution and could prevent ratification of the
Constitution. The Supreme Court has said that no right is more precious
in a free country than having a voice in the election of those who
govern us. I continue to believe what I stated more than 30 years ago
here on the Senate floor, that Americans living in the District should
enjoy all the privileges of citizenship, including voting rights.
The bill introduced today would treat the District of Columbia as a
congressional district to provide for full representation in the House.
The bill states, however, that the District shall not be treated as a
State for representation in this body.
No matter how worthwhile or even compelling an objective might be,
however, we cannot legislatively pursue it without authority grounded
in the Constitution. I would note that the Constitution explicitly
gives Congress legislative authority over the District ``in all cases
whatsoever.'' This authority is unparalleled in scope and has been
called sweeping, plenary, and extraordinary by the courts. It surpasses
both the authority a State legislature has over its own State and the
authority Congress has over legislation affecting the States.
Some have argued that despite the centrality of representation and
suffrage, and notwithstanding our unparalleled and plenary authority
over the District, that Congress cannot provide a House seat for the
District by legislation. They base their argument on a single word.
Article I, Section 5, of the Constitution provides that the House of
Representatives shall be composed of members chosen by the people of
the several States. Because the District is not a State, the argument
goes, it cannot have a House seat without a constitutional amendment,
I studied this issue extensively and published my analysis and
conclusions in the Harvard Journal on Legislation for everyone to
consider. I ask unanimous consent that this article be made part of the
Record following my remarks. Let me here just mention a few
considerations that I found persuasive.
First, as I have already mentioned, the default position of our
system of government is representation and suffrage. That principle is
so fundamental that, in this case, I believe there must be actual
evidence that America's founders intended to deny it to District
residents, No such evidence exists.
Second, establishing and maintaining the District as a separate
political jurisdiction does not require disenfranchising its residents.
The
[[Page S144]]
founders wanted the capital to be free from State control and I support
keeping it that way. Giving the District a House seat changes neither
that status nor Congress' legislative authority over the District.
Third, America's founders not only did not intend to disenfranchise
District residents, they demonstrated the opposite intention by their
own legislative actions. In 1790, Congress provided by legislation for
Americans living in the land ceded for the District to vote in
congressional elections. No one even suggested that this legislation
was unconstitutional because that land was not part of a State. If
Congress could do it then, Congress can do it today.
Fourth, courts have held for more than two centuries that
constitutional provisions framed in terms of States can be applied to
the District or that Congress can legislatively accomplish for the
District what the Constitution accomplishes for States. Congress, for
example, has authority to regulate commerce among the several States.
The Supreme Court held in 1889 that this applies to the District. Do
opponents of giving the District a House seat believe Congress cannot
regulate commerce involving the District?
The original Constitution provided that direct taxes shall be
apportioned among the several States. The Supreme Court held in 1820
that Congress' legislative authority over the District allows taxation
of the District. Do opponents of giving the District a House seat
believe that the District is suitable for taxation but not for
representation?
The Constitution provides that federal courts may review lawsuits
between citizens of different States. The Supreme Court held in 1805
that Congress can legislatively extend this to the District even though
the Constitution does not.
The list goes on involving provisions of the Constitution, statues,
and even treaties. Over and over, courts have ruled either that
provisions framed in terms of States can be directly applied to the
District or that Congress can legislatively do so. Perhaps opponents of
giving the District a House seat believe that all of these decisions
over more than two centuries were wrong, that the word States begins
and ends the discussion in every case. They cannot say so in the
present case without confronting those precedents.
These and other considerations which I discussed in the article I
mentioned have led me to conclude that the Constitution allows Congress
legislatively to provide a House seat for the District. I do want to
repeat my continuing opposition to District representation in the
Senate. The District's status as a non-State jurisdiction is not
relevant to representation in the House, which was designed to
represent people, but it is relevant to representation in the Senate,
which was designed to represent states. I would once again emphasize
that the bill introduced today explicitly disclaims Senate
representation for the District.
In December 2006, I signed a letter to the majority and minority
leaders expressing the same position I had taken three decades earlier.
It stated that while there are many differences between Utah and the
District, to be sure, they share the right to be represented in our
country's legislature. I take the same position today, believing that
Congress may and should pass the bill introduced today to provide for
that representation.
Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am proud to cosponsor the District of
Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2009 to end the unfair treatment of
District of Columbia residents and give them voting representation in
the House of Representatives. For over 200 hundred years, the residents
of the District of Columbia have been denied a voting Member
representing their views in Congress. That is wrong, and I hope the
Senate will consider this important issue early this year to remedy the
disenfranchisement that residents of our Nation's capital have endured.
When the Senate considered this legislation last Congress the
Republican minority chose to filibuster the bill. While a majority
favored it, we fell short of the 60 votes needed to end the filibuster
and pass it. Earlier that year, however, the House of Representatives
worked in a bipartisan manner to pass a 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 her 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 citizens living in the Nation's capital
deserve a vote, as well.
The bill introduced today would give the District of Columbia
delegate a vote in the House. It would give Utah a fourth seat in the
House as well. Last Congress, the Judiciary Committee held hearings on
a similar measure and we heard compelling testimony from constitutional
experts. They testified that this legislation is constitutional, and
highlighted the fact that Congress's greater power to confer statehood
on the District certainly contains the lesser one, the power to grant
District residents voting rights in the House of Representatives.
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 Sixteenth
Amendment grants Congress the power to directly tax incomes ``without
apportionment among the several States,'' but 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 without any
say in how those dollars are spent.
I believe that this legislation is within Congress's powers as
provided in the Constitution. I agree with Congressman John 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
the District of Columbia. These Americans pay Federal taxes, defend our
country in the military and serve on Federal juries.
This is an historic measure that holds great significance within the
civil rights community and for the residents of the District of
Columbia. I urge Senators to do what is right and to support this bill
when it comes to the floor for full Senate consideration.
Over 50 years ago, the Senate overrode filibusters to pass the Civil
Rights Acts of 1957 and 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Congressman Lewis, a courageous leader during those transformational
struggles decades ago, gave moving testimony before the Senate
Judiciary Committee last Congress in which he reminded us that ``we in
Congress must do all we can to inspire a new generation to fulfill the
mission of equal justice.'' The Senate should continue to fight for the
fundamental rights of all Americans and stand united in serving this
noble purpose. No person's right to vote should be abridged, suppressed
or denied in the United States of America. Let us move forward together
and provide full voting rights for the citizens in our Nation's
capital.
______