[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.
                                 ______