[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 17]
[Senate]
[Pages 24444-24445]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




           THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 2007

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, in 2005, President Bush praised the Iraqi 
people for exercising the Democratic right to vote. He noted that by 
participating in free elections, the Iraqi people firmly rejected the 
anti-democratic ideology of the terrorists, and they demonstrated the 
kind of courage that is always the foundation of self-government. 
Similar to President Bush, I applaud when anyone has the right to vote 
and the right to determine where they will go with that right to vote. 
I wish, though, the President would speak as enthusiastically about 
voting rights for the American citizens who live literally in his 
backyard, in the same city where he resides in the White House. It is 
disappointing that the Bush administration has threatened to veto 
legislation that would give a vote to the Member of the House of 
Representatives from the District of Columbia.
  I also understand the opponents of this voting rights bill are 
considering a filibuster to prevent its passage. In a recent column in 
the Washington Times, former Maryland Governor Michael Steele and 
former Congressman J.C. Watts, two Republicans, reminded us that the 
last time a voting rights bill was filibustered was 50 years ago. I was 
much too young to even vote, but I do remember that filibuster. Despite 
Senator Thurmond's record-setting effort, the Senate rightfully passed 
the Civil Rights Act in 1957. It followed up with the Civil Rights and 
Voting Rights Acts in 1960, 1964 and 1965. I hope the Senate does not 
return to the days when it filibustered voting rights, especially for 
its African-American citizens.
  The city of the District of Columbia has approximately the same 
number of people as the State of Vermont. We are the 14th State in the 
Union. We have had the right to vote, for Senators and Representatives, 
for over 200 years. The distinguished Presiding Officer, of course, 
represents one of the very first States of this Union. In fact, he can 
proudly represent a State whose forefathers did much to design the 
United States of America and has provided President after President but 
especially laid the cornerstone of a great nation. It made it possible 
for the State of Vermont to be the first State admitted after the 
original 13.
  There is no way I could go back to my State of Vermont and say that 
the District of Columbia, with almost exactly the same number of 
people, does not have a voting Member in the House of Representatives. 
Back in my State, they would say we have two Senators, but at least let 
us take this step. Let us vote it up or down. Let's not go back to the 
shameful days of 1957 when such rights were filibustered.
  We have had hearings on this in the Senate Judiciary Committee. We 
have heard compelling testimony.
  This month the Judiciary Committee marked the 50th anniversary of the 
Civil Rights Act of 1957 with a hearing. Congressman John Lewis, a 
courageous leader during those transformational struggles only decades 
ago, gave moving testimony reminding us that ``we in Congress must do 
all we can to inspire a new generation to fulfill the mission of equal 
justice.'' While we are observing this golden anniversary, it is 
fitting that the Senate turn to this important voting rights measure, 
the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act.
  I am a cosponsor of this bipartisan legislation to end the unfair 
treatment of District of Columbia residents and give them full 
representation in the House of Representatives. I thank the majority 
leader, Senator Reid, for bringing this timely issue to the Senate for 
consideration.
  In April, the House of Representatives worked in a bipartisan manner 
to pass their 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 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 
people of the District of Columbia deserve a vote, as well.
  This is not the time for further delay. It is the Senate's turn to do 
what is right. The Senate bill would give the District of Columbia 
delegate a full vote in the House. To attract Republican support, the 
bill offsets that

[[Page 24445]]

vote for DC by according Utah an additional Representative in the 
House, as well. This is an effort to provide political balance. With it 
or without it, I support representation for the District of Columbia.
  I believe that the legislation that we are considering today is 
within Congress's powers as provided in the Constitution. I agree with 
Congressman 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 our Nation's Capital. They pay Federal taxes, 
defend our country in the military and serve on Federal juries. They 
are citizens no less than the citizens of any State. Their votes should 
count. They should be represented.
  In May the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on this 
legislation. We heard compelling testimony. Retired Chief Judge 
Patricia Wald testified that this legislation is constitutional and 
highlighted the fact that Congress's greater power in accordance with 
the Constitution to confer full statehood on the District certainly 
contains the lesser power to grant District residents voting rights in 
the House of Representatives. She also reminded us that Congress has 
exercised this authority in the past without a rigid adherence to the 
constitutional text when it granted voting rights to Americans abroad 
in their last State of residence regardless of whether they are 
citizens of that State, pay taxes to that State, or have any intent to 
return to that State. Her former colleague on the DC Circuit, Ken 
Starr, echoed her conclusion that this legislation is constitutional.
  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 16th amendment grants Congress the power to 
directly tax incomes ``without apportionment among the several 
States.'' That constitutional provision 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, yet has no vote in 
connection with how those dollars are spent. The local license plates 
say a good deal and remind us of our heritage when they say ``Taxation 
without Representation.''
  As I said, in 2005, President Bush praised the Iraqi people for 
exercising their democratic right to vote, and he noted that ``by 
participating in free elections, the Iraqi people have firmly rejected 
the antidemocratic ideology of the terrorists [a]nd they have 
demonstrated the kind of courage that is always the foundation of self-
government.'' Unfortunately, the President does not speak so 
enthusiastically about voting rights for the American citizens living 
literally in his backyard. It is disappointing that the Bush 
administration has threatened to veto this legislation.

                          ____________________