[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 1]
[House]
[Pages 1008-1016]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                 VOTING RIGHTS FOR DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from the District of 
Columbia (Ms. Norton) is recognized for 60 minutes.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I have initiated this Special Order on 
behalf of the people of the District of Columbia who are second per 
capita in the Federal taxes they pay to support our Federal Government; 
yes, including this House and Senate and all the Armed Forces and our 
exquisite government throughout the United States, and who have fought 
and died in every war since the establishment of the Republic. In their 
name, I come forward.
  I came forward Tuesday in a 5-minute Special Order simply to inform 
the House that I had just filed my vote, my bill, that is to say, 
refiled the bill that Representative Tom Davis and I had filed and 
hoped to pass in the 109th Congress, the Fair and Equal D.C. House 
Voting Rights Act. I came in gratitude to my own party. I came also in 
some frustration. It is impossible to hide that frustration.
  I represent people who have been frustrated for 200 years and don't 
want one single moment more of frustration by having a second-class 
Member of the House of Representatives while paying first-class taxes 
and dying and fighting in every war that our country has ever fought, 
including this war where lives continue to be lost in such large 
numbers and for what cause. They do not ask, they simply fight like 
other Americans.
  I had hoped to be able to vote on the very bills that have been in 
discussion here this week, particularly the bills on which Democrats 
ran and perhaps were responsible for our capture of the House. And my 
deepest regret was that my Committee of the Whole vote that was taken 
from me when the Democrats came to power was not automatically put back 
into the rules.
  To his great credit, the majority leader indicates that he intends to 
introduce a provision to that effect. And I know I speak for myself and 
all of the delegates when I thank him about thinking about us and about 
how deeply we feel about that vote. For myself, I have come to the 
floor to say that I have had to pass that vote. I won't get to vote on 
the six items. I have been pleased to be able to speak on them as 
usual.
  I am at this point moving forward to where I have been instructed by 
the people of the United States. They don't even want the Committee of 
the Whole vote confused with what they are entitled to, and that is the 
full House vote.
  Mr. Speaker, before I go further, I have a number of people I must 
thank. The bill I introduced today was not a bill that I authored. It 
was originated by my good friend who also lives in the region, 
Representative Tom Davis of

[[Page 1009]]

Virginia, who has grown up in the region and has seen the District of 
Columbia without a vote and believed that at least a vote on the House 
floor was virtually mandated by any Congress controlled by either 
party. He was in the majority and he initiated this idea because it 
came to his attention that the most Republican State in the Union had 
missed getting full voting rights, were chafing at that because they 
believed they were entitled and they had gone all the way to the 
Supreme Court to get them, and believed that this provided out what 
turns out to be the case, probably the only opportunity the District of 
Columbia will have to get its full voting rights in a very long time.
  I want to thank the majority leader who lives in the region who has 
been one of the most steadfast proponents of D.C. voting rights and 
never gives up and who always stands with us and to whom we will be 
eternally grateful.
  I have special thanks to Henry Waxman, the Chair of the Government 
Reform Committee, who has been the Democratic leader of the bill that I 
bring forward today for all 4 years which we have worked on it. He is 
always a strong supporter of District home rule and for District of 
Columbia voting rights. He was here years before I came to Congress, 
and I am second only to him in supporting these issues. He is one of 
the great problem-solvers of the Congress, and he has been instrumental 
in bringing this bill forward. It is impossible to believe it could 
have happened without Henry Waxman.
  I want to thank the Democratic and Republican members of the 
Government Reform Committee, who in the 109th Congress literally gave 
us virtually a tie vote of Republicans and Democrats favoring this 
bill: 15 Democrats, 14 Republicans.
  I want to thank Representative John Conyers, a founder of the 
Congressional Black Caucus, the dean of the caucus, who has carried 
this idea again long before I ever thought of coming to Congress.
  At the same time, I want to thank my colleagues in the Congressional 
Black Caucus who since the founding days of the caucus have given D.C. 
voting rights a priority, who believe with me that it is an issue of 
discrimination based on race, and for that matter on location. I say 
that and will explain it later because of the origins of our voteless 
condition.
  I want to thank Senator Joe Lieberman, who with many other Democratic 
Senators in the Congress have carried my bill for full voting rights 
for the residents of the District of Columbia, the No Taxation Without 
Representation Act. We have reluctantly but with great realism embraced 
the House-only act because we understand the spirit of the Congress, 
that it has virtually never acted all at once to do what it is supposed 
to do. So we know that we have to proceed in an incremental fashion.
  I must thank my good colleagues from the State of Utah who have 
worked hand in glove with me every step of the way: Jim Matheson, the 
only Democrat in that delegation; Rob Bishop and Chris Cannon who have 
thrown aside party lines and thrust themselves into this bill from the 
beginning.
  I want to thank the two Senators from Utah, Orrin Hatch and Bob 
Bennett, who sent word to their leadership that they were prepared to 
have this bill come to the floor at the end of the 109th Congress for 
unanimous passage.
  That would have happened, in my view, because the traditions of the 
Senate are that if a bill affects only one State, as a matter of 
Senatorial courtesy, the Senate defers to those Senators. It is 
heartbreaking that the 109th Congress punted the bill and robbed us of 
the opportunity to have that Senate vote in December.
  I have to thank the Governor of Utah, who came here to testify for 
the bill and has worked valiantly with the Democratic minority in Utah 
as well as with his own party.
  I do want to read from the letter that the Senators sent asking for 
the bill to be considered right away because, you see, the 
bipartisanship we must preserve in this bill. They said in their letter 
to their leaders, Leader Frist and Leader Reid, a letter signed by 
Senator Bennett, Senator Hatch and Senator Lieberman: ``It is urgent 
that Congress fulfill its obligation to provide the voting 
representation that Utah is entitled to as a result of changes to its 
population. Likewise, we recognize that the 600,000-plus Americans who 
live in the District of Columbia are without a voting Member of 
Congress. No doubt the citizens of Utah and the District face different 
challenges in greatly differing parts of the country and with greatly 
differing lifestyles, but they share a commonality: the right to be 
represented in our country's legislature.''
  If ever there was a win/win piece of legislation, I think most 
Members would agree this is it. Certainly the American people agree: 82 
percent of Americans support equal voting rights for the District of 
Columbia in Congress. That is 82 percent, up 10 percentage points in 
just 5 years.
  This professional poll shows some astounding results because then you 
want to look and see, is this piled up all on one side of the country 
or one grouping or one race, and you see the same thing throughout. 
Once people realize you pay Federal income taxes, and if you go to war 
the way we do, if the blood of the United States runs in your veins, 
you give up on the question of whether there should be voting 
representation in the Congress of the United States.
  All of the figures are in the high seventies or eighties. Northeast, 
Midwest. The South is the highest, 84 percent. Or if you look, at have 
a member of the military, they are 82 percent. These are people who 
believe in voting rights for the District of Columbia. Regularly attend 
religious services, 82 percent.
  Ages 55-plus, 82 percent; 18 to 34, 87 percent ages. We can find no 
variation in these figures, and I don't think you will find any 
variation anywhere in the world.
  This is the only country in the world where the residents of the 
capital do not have the right to vote in their national legislature. 
You can imagine why there is such great impatience in the District of 
Columbia. Imagine not having voting rights. Putting aside the taxes for 
a moment, when in the Vietnam War you had more casualties than 10 
States, when in World War II you had more casualties than four States, 
and in World War I you had more casualties than three States, and in 
the Korean War you had more casualties than eight States.
  Let me finally say a word about the bill, and I am so pleased to see 
other Members of Congress come to join me in this Special Order.
  My thanks again to the originator, the author of this bill. As it 
turns out, he has given us the only chance we will ever have. The 
Congress of the United States in House and Senate has never increased 
its number except on a nonpartisan basis. Democrats have never got it 
by themselves, Republicans have never gotten it by themselves.
  Everybody remembers Alaska and Hawaii. You want to know how deep this 
goes, slave States couldn't get in unless a free State could. That is 
the history of our country. I regret that there has to be that kind of 
equivalence, but I want everybody to know: Utah somehow disjoined from 
this bill kills it. So I thank Utah for giving us the only chance we 
will ever have, particularly since I am not sure that we will have 
another State ever that missed it by the skin of their teeth and would 
be willing to take this risk with us.
  This bill was 4 years in the making after Mr. Davis introduced it. My 
thanks to him will be eternal because he was gracious in working with 
me when I wanted matters added to the bill. For example, I said to him, 
I could not even sponsor the bill unless it also went to the Committee 
on the Judiciary because that is the committee of jurisdiction. And it 
was Mr. Davis who convinced Mr. Sensenbrenner to allow us a markup.
  I said that there had to be an increase of two seats so no Member 
would think that they would lose a seat because we were gaining a seat. 
And I asked for something that was

[[Page 1010]]

purely symbolic but important to the residents of the District of 
Columbia: I asked Mr. Davis who was then chairman of the committee if 
there could be a vote on my bill, the No Taxation Without 
Representation Act, so my people will know that I will never give up 
until they have full citizenship even if Congress requires us to do it 
step by step.
  But that is how we got home rule. Indeed, now we have the atrocious 
situation where my budget and laws have to sit here before we can spend 
our own money. So everything happens in this House incrementally.
  Mr. Speaker, Members on the floor who have been particularly gracious 
to me, always with me when I needed help, and I have needed help a lot 
as a Member from the District of Columbia with no delegation and no 
Senators, and some of them have come down in order to indicate their 
concern about our denial of voting rights and to say their piece. I 
could not be more grateful to them.
  I am told that the first to arrive was the gentlelady from the Virgin 
Islands, who is in perhaps not a comparable position because I am sure 
that the people of the Virgin Islands are glad not to have to pay taxes 
to the Government of the United States, but who indeed represents 
American citizens as free and full as any others in the House; and I am 
pleased she has come down this evening, Mrs. Christensen of the Virgin 
Islands.

                              {time}  1915

  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to support my colleague and friend, Eleanor 
Holmes Norton, in her hard and long-fought efforts to secure full 
voting rights in this body for herself and her constituents, and I 
applaud her strong and persistent advocacy and leadership on this issue 
that is so important to the people of the District of Columbia.
  Democrats have long been committed to providing full voting rights to 
the residents of the District, and I am proud to stand here as a 
Democrat speaking out for this right as well. But there has also been, 
as you have heard, support across the aisle.
  When he was the chairman of the Government Reform Committee, 
Representative Tom Davis worked with Congresswoman Norton to get 
bipartisan agreement on legislation to give one voting representative 
to the mainly Democratic District of Columbia, and another to the 
largely Republican State of Utah.
  This effort led to the introduction of the District of Columbia Fair 
and Equal House Voting Rights Act, 2006, last year, and this week, 
ranking member Davis kept his promise and joined Congresswoman Norton 
in reintroducing this bill into the 110th Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, as a Delegate in the House also without a vote, I would 
be remiss if I didn't acknowledge also the fact that my constituents, 
and indeed the constituents of our colleagues from Guam, America Samoa 
and Puerto Rico, also would want their representative to have a full 
vote in the House as well. We recognize, however, that our time for 
this has not yet come. But certainly the time of our brothers and 
sisters in the District of Columbia has come and is very long overdue.
  The residents of the District have been laboring under this 
undemocratic status for more than 200 years. That is 200 years of 
justice delayed and justice denied.
  Presidents as far back as Andrew Jackson have advocated for full 
representation in Congress for the District, and much later, President 
Richard Nixon in a special message to the Congress on the District of 
Columbia in 1969 said, ``It should offend the democratic sense of the 
Nation that the 850,000 residents of its capital, comprising a 
population larger than 11 of its States, have no voice in Congress.''
  Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the day when all citizens under the 
American flag will enjoy the democratic right of full representation in 
their national assembly as well as vote for our President and 
Commander-in-Chief. Until that day comes, I look forward to witnessing 
soon the day when residents of the District of Columbia, residents of 
the capital of our Nation, finally receive fair and equal voting rights 
in the House, the day that they will finally have justice.
  I urge my colleagues to support the District of Columbia Equal House 
Voting Rights Act and end taxation without representation for our 
fellow citizens in the District of Columbia.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for coming forward.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. 
Butterfield) who represents the district where my own mother was born 
and raised.
  Mr. BUTTERFIELD. Mr. Speaker, first let me thank the delegate from 
the District of Columbia for giving me this time this evening to speak 
on this most important subject. I have watched Eleanor Holmes Norton 
since I have been in the Congress, and she has worked so tirelessly on 
behalf of the people of the District of Columbia to get full voting 
rights, and I want to thank her for her passion and thank her for her 
work in this body.
  Mr. Speaker, many people who now call the District of Columbia home 
have established themselves here by way of my home State of North 
Carolina and by way of our neighboring State of South Carolina. As the 
delegate said a few minutes ago, even her family originated in Halifax 
County, North Carolina, which is in my Congressional District.
  Many DC residents are my schoolmates from eastern North Carolina. In 
coming to Washington, DC, they left parents, and they left grandparents 
behind who had endured blatant discrimination in public accommodations 
and discrimination at the ballot box. Many of them could not vote 
because of the literacy test, and others refused to register to vote 
because of voter intimidation.
  Now, Mr. Speaker, the descendants of these individuals living in 
Washington, DC, are again denied the right to vote and the right to 
have voting representation in Congress.
  What a disgrace. Voting is one of our most fundamental rights, but it 
is one that has been systematically denied for as long as it has been 
assured. Until 1919, women did not have the right to vote. African 
Americans gained the right to vote for the first time in 1868, and then 
lost that right in 1900. It was the Voting Rights Act that restored the 
effective right to vote in 1965.
  Mr. Speaker, each time the right to vote has been oppressed, good 
people, good people, have stood up and stood strong to ensure that 
right, because it forms the foundation of our ideals of governance.
  Today, we again have the opportunity to expand the right to vote and 
to ensure that the people being governed in the District of Columbia, 
who pay taxes and who fight in our wars, have a voice in their 
government.
  Rarely does an issue come before this body which goes right to the 
heart of our values as Americans. The right to vote is a simple and 
straightforward idea that embodies some of our most beloved founding 
principles, the idea that all men, all people, are created equal, and 
that we establish our government by the consent of the governed. When 
we fail to address inequalities such as these, we fail ourselves as a 
people and as a nation and we fail to honor the sacrifices of the many 
people before us who wanted to ensure basic rights to all Americans.
  As the Delegate so ably said a few moments ago, this is not a 
Democratic issue nor a Republican issue. This is an American problem 
that must be resolved and resolved in this session of the Congress.
  The strength of our great Nation lies within its citizens, and the 
power of its citizens relies upon the equal access to the franchise. 
These opportunities include our many freedoms, especially the right to 
have a strong and clear voice in choosing elected leaders. As the 
Constitution commands, we must extend the rights of citizenship to 
every, every, citizen of this land, including the citizens of 
Washington, DC.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the legislation that has 
been introduced by the Delegate, and I urge its passage.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Mr. Butterfield, the 
gentleman

[[Page 1011]]

from North Carolina, in memory of my mother, Vela Lynch Holmes, who 
came to the District of Columbia and died at 90 here, while her 
daughter was still trying, in the name of my father's side of the 
family, the native Washingtonians, to make us all first class citizens, 
the way finally you are in North Carolina. Thank you, sir.
  I would like to yield now to my good friend who came in my class with 
me, the gentlelady from California, who 16 years ago came. I think we 
tripled or quadrupled the number of African American women in the 
Congress then. I know that the gentlewoman from California won't let 
this House have any peace until there is justice for the District of 
Columbia.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker and Members, I wanted very much to be on this 
floor this evening with Eleanor Holmes Norton first because I want to 
show my strong support for her, her work, her love for the District of 
Columbia and for the way she has used every bit of her time and efforts 
to fight for voting rights for Washington, DC.
  I admire her spirit, I admire her commitment and I admire the way she 
has educated the entire Congress of the United States on this issue and 
forged a relationship with people on the other side of the aisle to get 
us to the point where we are.
  I know that it is disappointing sometimes to feel you have come so 
close, and it still hasn't happened, but I am convinced it will happen, 
because of you, Eleanor Holmes Norton. It will happen because you will 
not allow it not to happen.
  So I wanted to be here this evening more than to simply talk about 
the unfairness of not having voting rights. We all know that. I wanted 
to be here tonight to say to you, sister, I am with you. I have 
marched, and I will march again. I have sat in, and I will sit in 
again.
  I started on this issue when I was in the California State 
legislature, and sometimes I feel a little guilty because I don't think 
I demonstrated long enough and hard enough to show how much I care 
about this.
  I come from a time and place in St. Louis, MO, where I was educated 
in an elementary school called the James Weldon Johnson elementary 
school, with strong teachers who taught us the Constitution. We learned 
the Declaration of Independence. We learned what happened with the 
British and about the Boston Tea Party, and we learned about Patrick 
Henry, who declared, ``Give me liberty or give me death.''
  So, whether or not it was intended, it was instilled in us that in 
this America, despite the fact that we had witnessed discrimination, we 
had been marginalized, that we have a right in this democracy to 
participate fully.
  I really believed that, and if it was not intended, then they 
shouldn't have taught it to us, because we didn't think they were 
talking about somebody else. We truly believed they were talking about 
all of us.
  Mr. Speaker, there is not a day that passes as I look around this 
Capitol that I am not reminded of the slaves that happened to build 
these marvelous buildings. I am reminded on a daily basis of the people 
who work right here in the Capitol, in these buildings, who live in the 
District of Columbia, who hear us wax eloquently day in and day out 
about democracy and participation and the Voting Rights Act.
  These are the people who serve us day in and day out, and serve us 
well. You come into this Capitol late in the evening and you see who is 
working and how hard they work and what they do for all of us. And yet 
we walk past them every day, and we don't stop to say, ``I'm so sorry. 
You should have the right to have the representation in the Congress of 
the United States that you deserve and we thought would have been 
guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States.''
  So, Eleanor Holmes Norton, thank you. Thank you for the love that you 
have for the District. I know that your constituents know this. You 
don't have to prove anything to anybody, because your daily work proves 
who you are and what your values are and what you care about.
  I want you to know, November 7th gave us a new opportunity here. The 
people have voted, and the people have said to us they want to see 
change. The people are angry about what happened with Katrina. They are 
angry about Iraq. They are angry basically about injustice. And even 
those folks who oftentimes have been silent on the issue, they know 
injustice when they see it and feel it very deeply.
  So I am hopeful that we will be able to use this time that we have to 
provide the leadership, to give you the support, to make sure we do 
justice by the District of Columbia and ensure that you get your voting 
rights.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, this was classic Maxine Waters. The 
gentlelady is as gracious as she has always been militant in the 
pursuit of justice. Ms. Waters one session was on the floor with me for 
10 hours on the DC Appropriations as people came forward to try to 
attach things to our appropriation. So she has been a stalwart friend 
that has been by my side when I most needed her. I particularly 
appreciate those remarks from a classmate who came with me to the 
Congress.
  The next to arrive was my good friend from Illinois, Mr. Davis, a 
very good friend who serves with me on the Government Reform Committee, 
who I believe is going to chair the subcommittee on which I serve. He 
certainly has been a leader on issues on that committee and one of the 
greatly admired Members of the House, the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. 
Davis.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I first of all want to thank the 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia for not only organizing this 
special order, but for her tremendous devotion over the years.
  Many of us, long before we came to Washington, DC, long before we 
became Members of the House of Representatives, knew of the work of 
Eleanor Holmes Norton. As a matter of fact, I was talking to a 
gentleman the other day, Eleanor, who suggested that he went to 
elementary school with you, and that you were the smartest person in 
the class, and that he was always intimidated when he came to class 
because he knew that you were there.

                              {time}  1930

  And I don't know whether you intended to intimidate him or not, but I 
do know that the passion, the intellect, the energy that you display is 
something for all of America to be proud of; and I know that the people 
in the District of Columbia are indeed proud of the representation that 
you have given them.
  The issue that we deal with, I take the position, is one of the most 
fundamental of all rights, one of the most fundamental of all desires, 
and that is the desire that people have to be represented; the notion 
that their thoughts, ideas, hopes, and aspirations will get the same 
consideration as those of anybody else. So when we look at voting 
rights in this country historically, it has been a privilege that 
people have had to fight and struggle to get.
  Initially, of course, the only people who could vote were landowners, 
who were white in America. Those were the only individuals who had the 
right to vote. Then we went through this long period of time, and 
ultimately a Civil War, where thousands of people actually lost their 
lives, and finally African Americans, who had been slaves, were granted 
at least the right, although in many instances denied the opportunity, 
to vote. Women, who had to wage their own war, their own struggles, 
ultimately won their right to vote.
  Only after the Voting Rights Act of 1965 did hundreds of thousands of 
citizens all over the country, especially African Americans and 
Latinos, actually have the right to vote. Yet now we still have 
thousands of people who are denied the right to vote because they live 
in States where if you have a felony conviction you can never, ever 
vote, unless you can obtain a waiver. So, yes, one can imagine how 
people in the District of Columbia have felt as we talk about expanding 
democracy, as we talk about guaranteeing democracy for people in Iraq, 
guaranteeing democracy there; and yet the people who live in our own 
District of Columbia have not been able to have that experience.

[[Page 1012]]

  So, Eleanor, I know that we are going to make sure this happens 
before this session of Congress ends as a tribute to you and a tribute 
to the long-standing work that you have done. One of my pleasures is to 
serve with you on the Committee on Government Reform and to listen and 
to learn and to be motivated, to be inspired, and to see the kind of 
wisdom that you express on a regular and ongoing basis.
  So I thank you for the opportunity to join you, I thank you for 
organizing this Special Order, and we will be standing right here with 
you when enough ``yeas'' are said that the people in the District of 
Columbia will have their right to vote.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to extend a thank you to Congresswoman Eleanor 
Holmes Norton for this special order and her hard work and dedication 
to get the District of Columbia the right to vote with full 
representation. It is strange to me where our government by money and 
blood sought to assist Iraq to become a democratic state where each 
person will have one vote under their newly formed constitution to 
determine their nation's destiny. However, the residents in the 
District of Columbia for over 200 years have been denied by the United 
States government the right to vote with full representation. Moreover, 
DC presidents also are denied the right to full self-government--a 
fundamental right that should be possessed by all Americans.
  In 1950 with just under a million, the District of Columbia had more 
residents than New Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island, North Dakota, 
South Dakota, Delaware, Montana, Idaho, Wyoming, New Mexico, Arizona, 
Utah, Nevada, Alaska and Hawaii, respectively. All of these states from 
the beginning had U.S. Senators and U.S. Representatives representing 
their interests in Congress. Today, the District of Columbia has a duly 
elected Delegate that is not allowed to vote for legislative measures 
on the house floor. This is ``taxation without representation.''
  The government has a history of denying its citizens the right to 
vote. We have seen it before the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Since its 
passage and signing into law by President Johnson it gave way to an 
enormous and positive impact to our Nation. The importance and 
necessity of the Voting Rights Act cannot be overemphasized. We have 
learned through experience what a difference the vote makes to us.
  The right to vote is the most basic constitutive act of citizenship. 
The right to vote should not be abridged by the United States or any 
State on account of race, color, gender, or previous condition of 
servitude. Fundamental fairness requires that all members of society 
who have reached voting age, including rehabilitated ex-felons, be 
given a right to the ballot in State and Federal elections.
  The lack of a nationwide uniform standard regarding ex-felons and 
eligibility to vote has led to a crazy quilt of laws, where in some 
States ex-felons are barred from voting for life. Currently, it is 
estimated that 3.9 million United States citizens are disenfranchised, 
including over one million who have completed their sentences. State 
disenfranchisement laws have had an adverse affect on African 
Americans. Thirteen percent of African American men, or 1.4 million, 
are currently disenfranchised because of such laws. We need to expand 
the right to vote to all citizens.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to support the District of 
Columbia Fair and Equal Housing Voting Rights Act of 2007.
  Ms. NORTON. I just want to thank the gentleman for the kindness and 
graciousness of his remarks. This is his signature in this House. Every 
time he opens his mouth, he takes command of an issue and captures our 
attention. That he has given his attention to us in the District of 
Columbia is a matter for which we are deeply grateful.
  I would like to yield now to the gentlewoman from Houston, Texas, 
whose energy and intelligence and zeal for justice is known by every 
Member of this House. I am pleased now to yield to the gentlewoman from 
Texas, Representative Sheila Jackson-Lee.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, many might wonder why we come 
to the floor of the House and begin to either cite the Bible or begin 
to associate Congresswoman Norton with the angels flying above, but I 
love the statistics that she cited, because she mentioned the 
statistics of churchgoing people in Washington, D.C. So I begin by 
saying the prayers of the righteous avail us much. Not only has she 
been praying but she has been working.
  I would cast the reintroduction of H.R. 328 as the morality of 
Sojourner Truth that Eleanor Holmes Norton exhibits, and the integrity 
of Harriet Tubman, for this has been a long journey. But I believe in 
this new Congress, with this new direction, this simple bill, this 
premise of equality and justice can finally say our time has come.
  And if you don't mind, allow me to emulate your eloquence in the 
simplicity of this bill. H.R. 328 couldn't be more fair. You made it 
very clear that this is a bill that could not move without bipartisan 
support. You made the historical pronouncement that when we began to 
admit States during the era of slavery we admitted a free State and a 
slave State.
  Now, we know that there are Democrats and Republicans all across 
America, but we might imagine that under this bill, H.R. 328, that the 
State of Utah might elect someone from a different party than myself. 
Then we might just envision that Washington, D.C. would select and 
elect someone of my party. How fair could you be?
  We know that the delegate, who I call Congresswoman, appropriately 
titled, certainly is valued in the Democratic Party, but this 
legislation will be fair and balanced because it draws disparate 
populations that have been denied their birthright from the far ranges 
of the east coast of America to the far ranges of the western United 
States.
  Let me just briefly speak to the issue of birthright. We have spoken 
so much about citizenship. We have had such outrageous debates on the 
question of immigration; yet we have left out, for more than 200 years 
or more, citizens who have shed their blood through the Civil War, the 
Spanish-American War, World War I, World War II, the Korean War, and 
conflicts in between, the Vietnam War, and the present conflict that we 
now have. What do you say to parents and relatives, husbands and wives, 
sisters and brothers of a fallen soldier who happen to have an address 
in the District of Columbia, someone who offered themselves to stand up 
for this Nation's flag? I pledge allegiance to the concept of freedom 
and justice for all.
  So as we prepare to leave this weekend, Congresswoman, let me thank 
you for allowing us just a moment to come to the floor as we go into 
the weekend commemorating the birthday of Dr. Martin Luther King, who 
had the opportunity to be called by President Lyndon Baines Johnson to 
come to the Oval Office to witness the signing of the 1965 Voting 
Rights Act. I know full well that Dr. King would have wanted to have an 
amended initiative. I know Dr. King, if living, would be standing by 
your side and applauding you.
  Lastly, let me tell you an anecdotal story that I was going to try to 
ask you to remember, because I could not, but I really thought I was a 
champion of civil rights when your predecessor, Walter Fauntroy, who as 
you know would sing us all into marching wherever he wanted us to go, 
but he told us there was a man called McFarland that was chairman of 
the District of Columbia, wasn't it?
  Ms. NORTON. McMillan.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. McMillan, thank you. That's why I should 
have whispered to you before I came down.
  He would tell us that we needed to get on a bus and go to South 
Carolina to defeat, and I can say this on the floor, I know Mr. 
McMillan has gone on and is resting in peace, because this gentleman 
was an obstacle to the freedom, the dignity, and respect. All I knew 
was to get on this bus and go down to, I would like to say Florence, 
South Carolina, and go to a place where I was truly unwanted. We all 
were. In fact, the campaign office, they drove by in a pickup truck and 
shot at. But I had a sense of purpose and joy for the people of this 
great District, these patriots. These Americans deserved the equality 
of a vote.
  I will go to my seat by simply saying, out of their commitment comes 
Ms. Eleanor Holmes Norton, who I hope will claim the victory of the 
passage of H.R. 328, and that we will together, with you and your 
leadership, do the right thing for the patriots of this District.

[[Page 1013]]

  I thank Delegate Norton for organizing this special order on the 
``District of Columbia Fair and Equal House Voting Rights Act,'' 
bipartisan legislation that she and Congressman Tom Davis of Virginia 
have reintroduced as H.R. 328 in the ll0th Congress. The reintroduction 
of this legislation provides a second chance for Congress to complete 
one of the great unfinished tasks of the Civil Rights Movement. This is 
an opportunity that we should not squander.
  As Section 2 of H.R. 328 finds, over half a million people living in 
the District of Columbia lack direct voting representation in the House 
of Representatives and Senate. Residents of the District of Columbia 
serve in the military, pay billions of dollars in federal taxes each 
year, and assume other responsibilities of U.S. citizenship. For over 
200 years, the District has been denied voting representation in 
Congress--the entity that has ultimate authority over all aspects of 
the city's legislative, executive, and judicial functions.
  H.R. 328 would permanently expand the U.S. House of Representatives 
from 435 to 437 seats, providing a vote to the District of Columbia and 
a new, at-large seat to Utah. Based on the 2000 Census, Utah is the 
state next in line to enlarge its Congressional delegation. This bill 
does not give the District statehood, nor does it give the District 
representation in the Senate. Rather, H.R. 328 treats the District as a 
Congressional district for the purposes of granting full House 
representation.
  Previous Congressional efforts to secure voting representation for 
the District of Columbia include a proposed 1978 Constitutional 
amendment, a 1993 statehood bill, and a 2002 voting representation 
bill. On August 22, 1978, a two-thirds majority in each Chamber of 
Congress passed the DC Voting Rights Constitutional Amendment, which 
would have provided District residents voting representation in the 
House and Senate. The required 38 states did not ratify the amendment 
within the seven-year time limit. On November 21, 1993, the New 
Columbia Admission Act, H.R. 51, a statehood bill for the District of 
Columbia, was defeated in the House by a vote of 277-153.
  Most recently, on October 9, 2002, then Senate Governmental Affairs 
Committee Chairman, Joseph Lieberman, marked-up his legislation 
providing Senate and House representation for the District. The 
Committee reported the bill favorably with a vote of 9-0. However, the 
Senate did not take up this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, the key provision of H.R. 328 is section 4, which 
permanently increases the Membership of the House of Representatives 
from 435 to 437. One seat would be designated for the District of 
Columbia and the other seat would go to Utah, the state next in line 
under the 2000 Census apportionment formula. Section 4 also provides 
that the new seat established in Utah shall be an at-large seat. This 
at-large seat shall exist until all congressional seats are 
reapportioned for the 2012 election.
  Mr. Speaker, passage of the DC Fair and Equal House Voting Rights Act 
and would be a simple act of justice. After all, the legislation is 
vote-neutral in that it does not advantage any political party over 
another; the bill commands wide bipartisan support; and most important, 
the bill is constitutional.


                        The Bill Is Vote-Neutral

  The DC Voting Rights Act provides Americans living in our nation's 
capital with voting representation in the House of Representatives for 
the first time ever. The DC VRA balances a seat for DC with an 
additional seat for Utah. Utah missed getting a fourth vote in the 
House by less than 1,000 people following the 2000 U.S. Census.
  Utah is a historically Republican state. The District of Columbia has 
traditionally voted Democratic. Thus, the bill is viewed as vote-
neutral, not favoring one political party over another. This balance 
has led to a nonpartisan consensus, which is critical to enacting this 
bill.


                         The Bill Is Bipartisan

  Throughout history, Democrats and Republicans have gone on record in 
strong support of DC voting rights. Presidents, presidential 
candidates, senators, members of Congress and prominent legal experts 
from both sides of the aisle have declared support for granting the 
residents of Washington, DC, a vote in Congress. From Supreme Court 
Justice William Rehnquist and Senator Bob Dole to President Jimmy 
Carter and Senator Edward Kennedy, political leaders are on record for 
democracy in DC.
  In 2006, Representative Tom Davis and Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton 
were joined by now House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Representatives Chris 
Cannon, John Conyers, Henry Waxman, Dan Burton, Rob Bishop and others 
in support of the DC Voting Rights Act. Off the Hill, former elected 
officials Jack Kemp, John Breaux, J.C. Watts and others support the 
bill.
  Secretary Kemp put it well at the Martin Luther King Memorial 
groundbreaking when he said: ``Dr. King like Mr. Lincoln believed that 
`democracy is the ultimate destiny of all mankind'. Thus it becomes 
strikingly ironic and indeed actually hypocritical for our nation to 
send young men and women to fight in foreign wars in the cause of 
freedom and democracy but continue to deny the people of this great 
city the opportunity to vote for their representative in the U.S. 
Congress.''


                       The Bill Is Constitutional

  In a letter to the House Judiciary Committee this summer, the 
American Bar Association stated: ``Enactment of the proposed [bill) 
would be an exercise of this constitutional authority conferred by the 
`District Clause.'''
  Former federal appeals court judge and Solicitor General, Judge 
Kenneth Starr, during congressional testimony in 2004, stated that 
Congress clearly has the constitutional power under the Constitution's 
District Clause (Art. I, Sec. 8, Clause 17) to confer voting 
representation: ``The use of the word `state' [in the Constitution) 
cannot bar Congress from exercising its plenary authority [under the 
District Clause) to extend the franchise to District residents.''
  Other constitutional law experts, including Professor Viet Dinh and 
Judge Patricia M. Wald, formerly of the D.C. Circuit, agree that 
Congress has the constitutional authority to grant congressional voting 
representation to the residents of the District of Columbia.
  Mr. Speaker, Americans living in our nation's capital pay taxes, 
serve on juries, and defend our nation during times of war, but do not 
have voting representation in either chamber of Congress. The United 
States is the only democratic country in the world that denies voting 
representation to citizen of the nation's capital. A national poll 
conducted in January 2005 showed that 82 percent of Americans believe 
that Washingtonians deserve voting representation in the House and 
Senate. While we are attempting to export democracy abroad, it is time 
we provide American rights for people living in America's capital.
  In conclusion, let me express my thanks again to the Delegate from 
the District of Columbia for organizing this special order. I look 
forward to working with her and my colleagues on the Judiciary 
Committee and in the House to win passage of this important 
legislation, which will treat the hundreds of thousands of citizens in 
the District of Columbia fairly and equally when it comes to voting 
representation in the House of Representatives.
  Ms. NORTON. I want to thank the gentlewoman. The selfless spirit of 
her remarks, the intelligence of her remarks is nothing new in this 
body. Indeed, it reminds me of the same spirit she has shown when our 
own citizens from New Orleans came in huge numbers to her great city 
and they took them in, because they were Americans.
  I also want to thank her for citing and reminding us that Martin 
Luther King's birthday is coming up and we are all going to be 
somewhere celebrating. Well, Martin Luther King would be here saying to 
this House, particularly to the Democratic majority who has spearheaded 
this issue for decades now, that now is the moment. Do it now. That is 
what he said when he was on the Mall. Do it now. Freedom now.
  Indeed, the new Mayor of the District of Columbia, Adrian Fenty, who 
has been particularly active on voting rights, has indicated to me that 
he will be dedicating January 15 here in the District to DC voting 
rights and kicking off a campaign on January 15 that he calls Give DC 
The Vote Now Day in memory of Martin Luther King, who would not want 
his day used in such trivialities as simple ceremonies.
  I also want to thank the gentlewoman for her reference to Mr. 
McMillan. Because the fact is the reason the District hadn't gotten 
home rule had to do with race and only with race. Mr. McMillan was a 
Southern Democrat who stood in the way, because beginning in the late 
1950s the majority population of the District of Columbia was African 
Americans. So race has always stood in the way of our full empowerment. 
Today, it is as likely to be party. That is why we are grateful to the 
State of Utah for stepping forward.
  I don't mean to say that race is gone from this issue. Residents of 
the District of Columbia, two-thirds of them African American, see this 
issue as an up-and-down civil rights issue. They

[[Page 1014]]

are the only African Americans in the United States that don't have 
their full civic rights, and they know it, and they treat this issue 
this way.
  I treat race as a simple proxy for party, because we are a big city, 
recognizing as I do that I know full well what second-class citizenship 
means. And you have to understand that the reason this is important for 
the District is not only was it a majority black city beginning in the 
late 1950s, but it was a segregated city for most of its existence. The 
schools were segregated. Even when I went to the schools in the 
District of Columbia. Downtown was segregated. And that was all at a 
time when Democrats in particular ran this House.
  That is why this issue knows no party and why it has huge racial 
connotations in our country and in the District, and that is why this 
is a major issue and has been for decades for the NAACP, the Leadership 
Conference on Civil Rights, and civil rights organizations across the 
United States.

                              {time}  1945

  They indicate that voting rights for the District of Columbia is 
second only on their agenda to what this House and Senate achieved on a 
bipartisan basis last year, and that is the reauthorization of the 1965 
Voting Rights Act.
  I want to say that, just by point of clarity, I introduced the same 
bill, essentially, that I had introduced before. That bill had a map in 
it that had been approved by Democrats and Republicans because Mr. 
Sensenbrenner, then the Chair of the Judiciary Committee, at the last 
minute said that he would not accept a compromise that we had all 
fashioned, that Utah, that our leadership, on both sides agreed to, and 
that was that there be an at-large seat so there would be no 
redistricting. The redistricting issue had been a very thorny issue 
because there is only one Democrat in Utah. He has been the target of 
gerrymandering. Nobody wanted that on the table any longer. And 
therefore, we came forward with a compromise of an at-large seat. Mr. 
Sensenbrenner insisted upon redistricting.
  Let me say, the people of the District of Columbia don't care one way 
or the other, whether it is at-large or redistricting the at-large. The 
redistricted seat there apparently is perfectly satisfactory to both 
sides. Whatever is easy, whatever gets me to sit in this seat as 
something other than the way I sit today, as a second class citizen, is 
acceptable to us. What we want is the vote, and we want our voting 
rights in the 110th Congress.
  I do want to say that we haven't given up on full citizenship, and we 
never intend to. But we recognize the way in which the House has always 
operated, and that is incrementally.
  It was not until 1967 that we incrementally began to give this, move 
this District toward having self government, would you believe. It had 
no mayor. It had no city council because it had been governed since the 
19th century by three commissioners appointed by the President of the 
United States; 800,000 people then living as a straight out colony in 
their own Nation's Capital.
  Lyndon Johnson abolished the commission and appointed a council. 
Then, in 1968, they gave the District the right to vote for their own 
board of education. Then, in 1970, the District got the right to vote 
for a delegate. And my good predecessor, a man who fought valiantly for 
our full rights, Walter Fauntroy, became the first Delegate. And then, 
finally, in 1973, the Home Rule Act itself was enacted, and the 
District got the right to elect its own city council and its own mayor. 
And notice, that is 32 years ago only that your Capital has even had 
the right to self government.
  All of this is a real scar on our democracy. The scar has to be taken 
off of this House and can be this year; and we ask that that be exactly 
what the House does.
  We remind the House that change for the District of Columbia only 
came at the Civil War, a true indication of the way race has decided 
matters in the District of Columbia.
  My own people came to this city through my great grandfather, a 
runaway slave. He was in Washington in 1862 when Congress abolished 
slavery here.
  But it is very interesting to note, when you see where the parties 
stand, that in 1848, when this House was controlled by the Democrats, 
the Democrats did give the District some home rule. But it gave it the 
right to have its own Board of Assessors, this is like a council, and 
voting rights to all white male voters.
  It took the radical Republicans, the abolitionist Republicans, to 
grant black males the right to vote, and that was in 1867. That was the 
proud history of the Republican Party. And we will never forget the 
roots of that party, Abraham Lincoln, the first Republican President, 
the President that abolished slavery, first in the District of 
Columbia, then of course, led our country to the abolition of slavery 
nationwide.
  It was in 1878 that this notion of government, not by this self 
government that had been set up for white males by the Democrats, that 
the Republicans had converted so that everybody who could vote in the 
United States could then vote.
  By the way, you notice women were not given the right to vote then, 
but they didn't have the right to vote anywhere.
  But what happened in 1878, when Reconstruction came forward, when the 
reaction to the Civil War came forward, then we had the Congress, 
obviously, in the hands of Democrats again, providing that the District 
of Columbia be governed, not by a self government, as had been allowed, 
but by these Presidentially appointed commissioners who were, in fact, 
the government of the District of Columbia until 1974.
  Mr. Speaker, occasionally you will hear some opposition to our bill 
based on the Constitution. Every other day somebody raises a 
constitutional issue about some bill that comes to the floor. And we 
concede that there is some division of opinion on whether or not 
Congress can give the District the right to vote through the 
Constitution, or whether it would take a constitutional amendment, as 
has been tried in the past, but the requisite number of States did not 
also ratify.
  On the basis of very respectable constitutional opinion, and we are 
certain that the bill is constitutional under Article I, Section 8 of 
the Constitution, Congress has full plenary power over all matters 
relating to the District of Columbia. We are certain that Congress can 
have the right because we are certain that that is what the framers 
intended.
  When the Constitution was ratified in 1789, it clearly contemplated 
that the vote would, in fact, be enjoyed by the people of the District 
of Columbia. Everybody lived in a state then, including the people of 
the District of Columbia. But notably, the citizens living on the land 
designated by the Constitution, in the Constitution itself, as the 
District, continued to have voting rights until 1801, because that land 
had been given to the Federal Government by Maryland and Virginia.
  When 1801 occurred, and the land came under the total control of the 
Congress, only Congress could step forward and say, now that you are 
under our jurisdiction, we just want to assure that you still, you have 
not lost your voting rights by becoming the Nation's Capital. And the 
people of the District of Columbia so petitioned, and Congress failed 
to act. Therein lies the fatal flaw. Congress did not act. But you 
certainly can't blame that on the Framers.
  Imagine, would Maryland and Virginia have conceded the land to create 
the District of Columbia if they thought they were disenfranchising 
their own citizens? Impossible. And the Framers themselves indicated 
that everybody in the United States would have their rights. So we are 
quite confident that the bill is constitutional, although you will hear 
words to the contrary from time to time.
  We are also confident that if we were to decide to use the at-large 
seat, as opposed to the map that is agreeable now, that that would be 
constitutional because every voter in the State of Utah, only for a 
very short time, because it then could revert, as the State

[[Page 1015]]

desires, to the present system from an at-large system; but every voter 
in Utah would have the same equal right with no dilution of that right 
to elect this at-large member for such period as the State chose to 
have it.
  These issues have been thoroughly vetted, and we have constitutional 
authority that I think the House would find persuasive. And I ask to be 
able to enter into the Record the testimony of Kenneth Starr, who 
testified to the constitutionality of the bill. This constitutional 
lawyer, respected by all for his constitutional background, even as he 
is regarded as controversial, perhaps that controversial side of his 
career helps to explain that this bill must be constitutional. And I 
thank Mr. Starr, and will submit that for the Record.

               [From the Washington Post, Sept. 17, 2006]

             Congress Has the Authority to Do Right by D.C.

                (By Kenneth Starr and Patricia M. Wald)

       More than 40 years ago, the Supreme Court declared 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.'' And yet, for 
     more than 200 years the citizens of the District have been 
     denied this right because they have no voting representation 
     in Congress. To its credit, Congress is taking steps to begin 
     correcting this longstanding injustice.
       Specifically, the House Government Reform Committee has 
     approved, and the House Judiciary Committee is considering, a 
     bill that would give D.C. residents the right to full voting 
     representation in the House. While conferring this right is 
     surely the right thing to do, a legitimate question has been 
     raised concerning Congress's authority to confer the right by 
     simple legislation, rather than through constitutional 
     amendment. We have carefully considered this question and 
     believe for three reasons the bill is within Congress's 
     authority: It is consistent with fundamental constitutional 
     principles; it is consistent with the language of Congress's 
     constitutional power; and it is consistent with the governing 
     legal precedents.
       First, interpretation of Congress's Article I legislative 
     authority should always be guided by the fundamental 
     principles upon which the nation and the Constitution were 
     founded. Those principles include a commitment to a 
     republican form of government and to the proposition that the 
     laws enacted by the legislature should be based on the 
     consent of the governed. There is nothing in our 
     Constitution's history or its fundamental principles 
     suggesting that the Framers intended to deny the precious 
     right to vote to those who live in the capital of the great 
     democracy they founded.
       Second, Congress's specific power over the District of 
     Columbia is one of the broadest of all its powers. In the 
     words of the Constitution, ``Congress shall have power . . . 
     to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever'' 
     over the District. In a 1984 case decided by the U.S. Court 
     of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, on which we both sat, Judge 
     Abner Mikva noted that through this constitutional provision, 
     the Framers gave Congress ``a unique and sovereign power'' 
     over the District. In that same case, Judge (now Justice) 
     Antonin Scalia wrote that the broad language of the power 
     gave Congress ``extraordinary and plenary'' power over our 
     nation's capital. And in another case, that same court held 
     that this broad power gave Congress authority to ``provide 
     for the general welfare of citizens within the District of 
     Columbia by any and every act of legislation which it may 
     deem conducive to that end.'' It is hard to imagine a 
     broader, more comprehensive congressional power than this; 
     and it is also hard to imagine that the power could not be 
     used to advance a fundamental principle of our Constitution--
     that the right to vote should be extended to all citizens.
       Finally, and equally important, the most analogous legal 
     precedent addressing Congress's authority over the District 
     confirms that Congress can act now to give the vote to D.C. 
     residents. That precedent concerned the fact that Article III 
     of the Constitution confers on federal courts jurisdiction to 
     hear suits brought by citizens of different states against 
     each other. But the Constitution did not give any such 
     express jurisdiction over suits brought by or against 
     citizens of the District of Columbia. As a result, Congress, 
     relying on its broad Article I power over the District of 
     Columbia, remedied that unfairness through legislation that 
     extended the right to District residents. In a 1949 case 
     called National Mutual Insurance Co. v. Tidewater, the 
     Supreme Court upheld that extension and also said that 
     Congress was entitled to great deference in its determination 
     that it had power to address this inequity. The logic of this 
     case applies here, and supports Congress's determination to 
     give the right to vote for a representative to citizens of 
     the District of Columbia, even though the Constitution itself 
     gives that right only to citizens of states.
       It is not a surprise that our Constitution, ratified in 
     1789, contemplated that the right to vote would be enjoyed 
     only by ``the people of the several states.'' After all, in 
     1789, all U.S. citizens lived in a state. It was not until 
     1801, when the process Congress authorized by statute in 1791 
     to create the District out of lands ceded by Virginia and 
     Maryland was completed, that District residents lost their 
     federal voting rights. There is no reason to believe the 
     Framers intended for this to happen. And in any case they 
     gave Congress power to address the problem. Congress has 
     initiated a process to do so, and we urge it to quickly 
     complete the task. As George Washington said in his first 
     inaugural address, the American people are entrusted with 
     ``the preservation of the sacred fire of liberty and the 
     destiny of the republican model of government.'' It is time 
     to extend that model to the citizens of the nation's capital.

  Ms. NORTON. There might be some opposition based on the notion that 
Utah gets one more electoral vote if they get a vote. Now, mind you, 
Utah is going to get that at some point anyway, probably in the near 
future. But there is some concern that Utah might get that vote now. 
And we have the kind of situation that people most fear ever since the 
2000 election, that there would be some kind of tie or some kind of 
dispute; we would have no longer a tied number of electors from 
Democratic and Republican States; and then you would have Utah with one 
more vote.
  Well, this is an issue that we asked a nonpartisan group about that 
doesn't think, that has a different view of how the present system 
operates in any case. The nonpartisan group is called Fair Vote, the 
Center For Voting and Democracy. It is not affiliated with the District 
of Columbia or with any party.
  Apparently, it believes that the national popular vote plan for 
President is how we should proceed. So they certainly are not making a 
case for us in any particular way.
  But it is important to note what they say about our bill and whether 
our bill could, in fact, result in a crisis based on the fact that Utah 
got one new electoral vote. And I am quoting: ``Our estimation of the 
odds of the District of Columbia Fair and Equal Voting Rights Act 
directly contributing to a Republican victory in the 2008 Presidential 
race is,'' they say the odds are, ``approximately 400-1,'' or, in other 
words, one chance in 1,600 presidential elections.
  I want the Member to stand up who would, on this scintilla of a 
chance, prefer to see us go without the only chance we have to get a 
vote now or in the foreseeable future.
  I want to thank the House for affording me this time, and the time of 
the Members who have been gracious enough to come and speak on this 
issue this evening. It is time that, for us, has been invaluable, 
simply to let the Members of the House know how deeply we feel that the 
time is on overtime to grant the people of the District of Columbia 
their House vote now, in this Congress, the 110th Congress.
  Mr. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Fair 
and Equal House Voting Rights Act of 2007, bipartisan compromise 
legislation to finally allow the District of Columbia voting 
representation in the U.S. House of Representatives. This balanced 
legislation, introduced by my honorable colleague from the District of 
Columbia, would give her constituents a vote in this chamber while 
adding a House seat for the state of Utah.
  Among the capitals of democratic nations around the world, the U.S. 
is the only country where its capital district citizens cannot vote in 
the national legislature. Washington, DC, while serving as the Nation's 
capital, also has many of the functions of a county or state. DC 
operates its own police force, school system, legal code, occupational 
licensure and vehicle inspections.
  Today, the District of Columbia is home to 120 neighborhoods and a 
population of 572,000. According to the 2000 U.S. Census, the 
population of Washington, DC is greater than that of the state of 
Wyoming (494,000) and is comparable to the states of Vermont (609,000), 
Alaska (627,000), and North Dakota (642,000).
  Proximity no longer means influence in the District of Columbia. The 
Bureau of Labor Statistics reports its unemployment rate is 6 percent, 
above the national average of 4.5 percent. DC's poverty rate is 17.5 
percent, five points above the national average.
  According to DC Vote, DC citizens pay higher per capita federal 
income taxes than any other state. DC citizens are subject to all our 
laws, serve on juries, fight our wars and pay taxes, yet have no voting 
representation in the U.S. Congress.

[[Page 1016]]

  Not only does DC have no say in the governance of our Nation, they 
have diminished voices in the governance of their own city. The very 
Congress which holds the power of the purse regarding DC's budget, also 
has the power to repeal any DC law enacted by its city council.
  It's time for fairness for the citizens of Washington, DC. As the 
representative of another great city, I am proud to support voting 
rights for the great city of Washington, DC, am proud to support the 
Fair and Equal House Voting Rights Act of 2007 and call for its swift 
passage.

                          ____________________