[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 1]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 835]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]


 INTRODUCTION OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA FAIR AND EQUAL HOUSE VOTING 
                               RIGHTS ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                             HON. TOM DAVIS

                              of virginia

                    in the house of representatives

                        Tuesday, January 9, 2007

  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Madam Speaker, today I am re-introducing 
with my colleague Representative Eleanor Holmes Norton the District of 
Columbia Fair and Equal House Voting Rights Act. This legislation has 
now been considered through several Congresses. It is no longer a novel 
idea. Nevertheless, the need for this legislation is stronger than ever 
and I call on the Congress to pass it without delay. We can't credibly 
struggle to make other parts of the world safe for democracy if we 
continue to deny it to residents of our Nation's Capital.
  This bill pairs two injustices in such a way as to create a 
politically neutral solution for both. The first injustice--that the 
citizens of the District of Columbia have no direct representation in 
the House of the United States Congress--has existed since Congress 
took away representation in 1800. The second injustice--the failure to 
count all of the residents of Utah in the last Census--is more recent. 
Historically, it takes just this kind of marriage to create a viable 
solution.
  We had a great deal of success in moving this bipartisan legislation 
last Congress. In our committee, a strong majority of both parties 
voted to pass this legislation. Over the last 3 years, it has been 
gratifying to watch members of my own party consider the problem and 
accept this solution. We now have the support of conservatives, 
moderates, and liberals. Unfortunately, we were unable to get the bill 
to the floor in the rush that ensued last December.
  Ironically, it was a rush to pass legislation that created this 
problem in 1800. In the lame duck session following the election of 
Thomas Jefferson of Virginia as President and the Whigs to the majority 
in 1800, Federalists rushed to pass legislation to set up some 
structure for the District of Columbia. Congress was silent on District 
voting rights in spite of having granted voting rights to District 
residents 10 years earlier in the Residence Act that created a Federal 
district.
  Now, over 200 years later, Congress has before it a principled and 
workable compromise solution. This bill does two simple things. It 
treats the District of Columbia as a congressional district for the 
purposes of representation in the House of Representatives, and 
permanently increases Congress to 437 members.
  After 3 years of research, it is clear that Congress does have the 
authority to grant the District a seat in the House of Representatives. 
This House, which we refer to as the ``People's House,'' represents the 
people of the several states. Some scholars have tried to parse the 
phrase to mean that state residents only are represented.
  But when this phrase was drafted there was no Federal District. The 
``People of the Several States'' means all Americans.
  Congress has recognized this by allowing Americans living overseas to 
vote in House elections despite the fact they are no longer residents 
of any state. Overseas Americans are allowed to vote in their last 
state of residence even if they never intend to return to that state.
  There always seems to be some reason to keep from doing a good thing. 
In our personal lives we all put off the easy act of common 
graciousness because we're busy or because we're tired or because 
someone treated us unfairly. This makes sense at the time, but in the 
end we are all poorer for missing the opportunity.
  The same is true with this legislation. Maybe you don't like the 
permanent increase in the size of Congress. Maybe you want to protect 
``states rights'' in redistricting. Maybe you wish this addressed the 
Senate as well. Maybe you just don't know for sure what the Sixth 
Congress intended when they created this problem.
  I would ask every member of this body to look up for a minute and 
look at the people we live with here in the District. Is there anything 
really gained by refusing them direct representation in the Federal 
Government? I say no.
  It is time to make a change in the way this District is governed. It 
is time to tell the 550,000 District citizens that we recognize their 
inalienable right to participate in the decisions that affect their 
lives every day.
  Let's not--once again--miss the chance to do the good thing. Justice 
should no longer have to wait.

                          ____________________