[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 18]
[Senate]
[Pages 24596-24597]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




              DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HOUSE VOTING RIGHTS ACT

  Mr. BROWNBACK. Mr. President, I rise to speak on the DC Voting Rights 
Act today. It is a tough issue. It is one with which I am familiar. I 
have chaired the DC Subcommittee both on the authorizing and the 
appropriating side. I have worked in the District of Columbia on a 
number of different issues. I reside here when I am not in my home 
State of Kansas. My home is in Kansas, but I have an apartment that is 
here, so I am living in the District. I have talked with many people 
about the Voting Rights Act issue. I am sympathetic with the people of 
the District of Columbia not having an elected delegate to represent 
them, although I know very well the lady who is representing them in 
the House, Eleanor Holmes Norton, who is an outstanding Representative 
for the District of Columbia, although she does not have the right to 
vote on the floor. I have worked with her on many issues to rebuild the 
family structure in Washington, DC with things such as Marriage 
Development Accounts. I worked with her on revitalizing the District of 
Columbia with an economic revitalization bill that passed when I first 
came into the Senate in 1996. I worked with her and others on the 
schools in Washington, DC, and the deplorable state of the schools in 
Washington, DC.
  I have worked on all these issues and I am familiar with this issue 
and the Voting Rights Act of 2007. Yet I cannot support this bill. I 
can and would support a constitutional amendment allowing the District 
of Columbia the right to vote in the House of Representatives, but I 
cannot support this Voting Rights Act. I want to speak here on the 
floor this morning and outline why I cannot vote for it.
  Congress has long recognized we can only grant District residents the 
ability to participate in Federal elections through constitutional 
amendment. Congress has recognized that. Prior to 1961, for example, 
District residents were not permitted to vote in Presidential 
elections. Article II, section 1 of the Constitution expressly provides 
that the electoral college should be comprised of electors from each 
State, in a number equal to the State's combined congressional 
delegation. In the face of this express constitutional language, 
Congress recognized that a change in the law would require a change in 
the Constitution itself, looking at the plain meaning of the statute 
and the plain meaning of the Constitution. That is why, when we granted 
DC residents the right to participate in Presidential elections, we 
went about it the right way, by passing what would become the 23rd 
amendment to the Constitution, allowing DC residents the right to 
participate in a Presidential election.
  We saw the plain meaning of the Constitution and we did the right 
thing; we amended the Constitution. Just as article II of the 
Constitution, which deals with the Presidency, limited the right to 
appoint Presidential electors to the States, article I, which deals 
with the Congress, clearly and repeatedly limits representation in the 
House and the Senate to the States. That is what it says. Article I 
says that the House:

     shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the 
     People of the several States, and the Electors in each State 
     shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the 
     most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

  It requires that each Representative:

     when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he 
     [was] chosen.

  It mandated that:

     each State . . . have at Least one Representative,

and provides that:

       When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, 
     the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election 
     to fill such Vacancies.

  Rarely do we have an issue in the Senate that has so much plain 
language from the Constitution involved. This one has a lot of plain 
language from the Constitution. I believe in strict construction of the 
Constitution. I think it would be hard for me to call myself a strict 
constructionist and say that we can, as a Congress, bypass the clear 
words in the U.S. Constitution and say we are just going to grant these 
rights to the District of Columbia to have an elected representative 
voting in the House of Representatives, even though I support that. 
That is something we should do, but we should do it the right way by 
amending the Constitution and not the wrong way by passing a law here 
that is clearly unconstitutional--and I will go through the court cases 
that have declared it unconstitutional--and then say: We will let the 
courts sort it out. I am a Federal officer, sworn to uphold the 
Constitution. I need to do so in this body and not just say I will hand 
it off to the courts.
  Congressional Democrats in 1978 recognized this fact. That year, 
Congress passed an amendment giving District residents a voting seat in 
the House. When the House Judiciary Committee, under the leadership of 
Democratic chairman Peter Rodino, reported out the amendment, the 
accompanying report properly recognized that ``[i]f the

[[Page 24597]]

citizens of the District are to have voting representation in the 
Congress, a constitutional amendment is essential; statutory action 
alone will not suffice.'' Sadly, the 1978 amendment failed to garner 
the support needed from the States to secure ratification.
  We all recognize that amending the Constitution is difficult, but it 
still remains the right way to deal with something of this nature. I am 
certainly not alone in concluding that this bill, although well 
intentioned, violates the plain language of the Constitution. The very 
court that will hear challenges to this bill under its expedited 
judicial review provision has previously ruled that District residents 
do not have a constitutional right to congressional representation.
  In Adams vs. Clinton in 2000, a three-judge panel of the Federal 
District Court for the District of Columbia concluded that the 
Constitution plainly limited congressional representation to the 
States. The court explained that ``the overlapping and interconnected 
use of the term `state' in the relevant provisions of Article I, the 
historical evidence of contemporary understandings, and the opinions of 
our judicial forebears all reinforce how deeply congressional 
representation is tied to the structure of statehood. . . . There is 
simply no evidence that the Framers intended that not only citizens of 
states, but unspecified others as well, would share in the 
congressional franchise.''
  The District residents who brought suit in Adams v. Clinton appealed 
their case all the way to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court 
affirmed the trial court's ruling. That is the same court which would 
hear this case.
  When Congress granted the DC and territorial delegates a broader role 
in the House by allowing them to vote in committee, several House 
Members sued to challenge the delegates' expanded power. In Michael v. 
Anderson, the Federal court for the District of Columbia Circuit took 
care to note that their expanded roles passed constitutional muster 
only because they did not give the essential qualities of House 
Representatives to the delegates.
  In light of the Constitution's clear limitation on House membership 
to representatives from the States, I cannot vote for cloture on the 
motion to proceed to this bill. I don't believe we in Congress should 
act to pass legislation that we know violates the Constitution, 
essentially passing the buck to the Federal courts to strike down what 
we never should have enacted in the first place and to strike down what 
they have already spoken on as recently as 2000. When we neglect our 
duty to the Constitution, we fail to uphold our oath as Senators to 
defend this great document.
  My friends in the Senate who support this bill rely primarily on two 
arguments, neither of which outweighs the clear mandate of article II.
  First, they claim that another provision in the Constitution, the so-
called District clause, allows Congress to essentially grant any sort 
of legislation related to the District of Columbia, including 
legislation to give DC residents a voting House Member. This clause 
permits Congress to pass laws to provide for the general welfare of 
District residents. This bill, however, does not propose to provide for 
the welfare of DC residents; it seeks to alter the fundamental 
composition of the House.
  Second, they correctly point out that there are certain instances in 
the Constitution where references to ``citizens of the states'' have 
been interpreted to include District residents. Many of these cases, 
though, involve individual rights, and it is obvious that DC residents 
do not lose their rights as citizens of the United States by choosing 
to live in the District. For example, they retain the right to trial by 
jury. They may bring civil suits in Federal courts against citizens of 
other States. This bill, however, is not a bill about individual rights 
such as the right to free speech, freedom of religion, or due process 
of law. This is a bill about the makeup of the House of Representatives 
itself. It is about the delicate balance our constitutional Framers 
struck in affording representation to the States in the House and the 
Senate. It is about the fundamental structure of our Government. We 
simply cannot override the clear language of the Constitution which 
limits congressional representation to the States simply by legislative 
fiat.
  While I sympathize with the supporters of this bill, I also take 
seriously my duty to the law, to upholding the Constitution. I will 
support and do support a constitutional amendment allowing DC the right 
to gain the vote. I do not support this bill as I do not believe it to 
be constitutional under the clear reading of the Constitution and under 
recent interpretations by the court.
  I yield the floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tempore. Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  The Senator from Louisiana is recognized for 6 minutes.
  Mr. VITTER. Thank you very much, Mr. President.

                          ____________________