[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 18]
[Senate]
[Pages 24606-24612]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HOUSE VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 2007--MOTION TO PROCEED

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, there will now be 15 
minutes equally divided between the two leaders or their designees on 
the motion to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to S. 1257.
  Who seeks time? The Senator from Connecticut.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to urge my colleagues to support 
the legislation before us today which was reported out of our committee 
on a 9-to-1 vote, bipartisan support.
  In some sense, it is unbelievable that we are here today in 2007 
trying, against some odds at this moment, to give to the residents of 
the Capital City of the United States, the District of Columbia, the 
right to have a voting representative in the Congress of the United 
States. To me, it is unbelievable, it is palpably unjust and, in my 
opinion, a national embarrassment.
  This bill, comparable to a bill that passed the House of 
Representatives--bipartisan--cosponsored by Delegate Eleanor Holmes 
Norton and Congressman Tom Davis--basically rights this grievous wrong 
by giving the District of Columbia, more than a half a million of our 
fellow Americans, a voting Member of Congress in the House of 
Representatives and to, frankly and directly, overcome concerns of the 
partisan impact of giving a House seat to the District because it tends 
to vote Democratic, and correcting another injustice, saying that the 
State of Utah, which came very close--less than 900 citizens--from 
having another seat in the Congress in the House as a result of the 
2000 census also gets a seat. So one for the District of Columbia, one 
for Utah.
  The situation is this: The residents of the Capital City of the 
greatest democracy in the world do not have voting representation in 
Congress. And yet, they have to pay the taxes we adopt--this is 
taxation without representation--their budget uniquely has to be 
approved by the Congress, and their sons and daughters today are 
serving, and I add dying in disproportionate numbers, in Iraq and 
Afghanistan in the war on terrorism, and yet they do not have a voting 
representative in Congress to pass judgment on appropriations and other 
matters related to that war.
  It is time to end the injustice, to end the national embarrassment 
that the citizens of this great Capital City do not have voting 
representation in Congress.
  I ask all my colleagues to vote for cloture. Do not let a filibuster 
kill a voting rights act, as used to happen too often around here.
  I have been honored to join as a cosponsor of this measure my dear 
friend, a great Senator, Senator Orrin Hatch of Utah.
  I yield the remaining time we have to Senator Hatch.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Utah.
  Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, we have had a lot of people talking about, 
oh, let's not do this because it is unconstitutional. I want everybody 
to know there are conservative and liberal advocates on both sides of 
this issue with regard to the District of Columbia and, I might add, I 
think most people will know Utah was not treated fairly after the last 
census. Naturally, Senator Bennett and I are for adding a seat in Utah.
  Let's go back to that point. There are good people on both sides of 
this issue, Democrats and Republicans on each side. There are decent 
arguments on each side of this issue, although I think our side has 
been given short shrift by some. And those who are so sure this is 
unconstitutional, that which the distinguished Senator from 
Connecticut, Mr. Lieberman, and I have been advocating, then why do 
they fear the expedited provision in this bill that will get us to the 
Supreme Court of the United States of America in what would be a very 
appropriate decision on who is right and who is wrong in this matter?
  We all know the argument that we should do this as a constitutional 
amendment is not a valid argument. It is a good argument, but the fact 
is it will never pass that way. There are 600,000 people in the 
District of Columbia, never contemplated by the Founders of this 
country to be without the right to vote. They are the only people in 
this country who do not have a right to vote for their own 
representative in the House of Representatives. This bill would remedy 
that situation.
  Those who argue it would be a presage to getting two Senators don't 
know the people in America or in this body. The fact is that Senators 
are elected by States with equal rights of suffrage. This 
representative, should this bill pass both Houses of Congress, would 
represent 600,000 people as the people's representative in the House of 
Representatives, which is what that is supposed to be.
  I might add, Supreme Court decision after Supreme Court decision has 
said the Congress has plenary power in this area, unique power in this 
area. It says Congress has authority over the District of Columbia. If 
Congress wants to give the District of Columbia a representative, 
Congress has the power to do so, and I believe the Supreme Court would 
uphold it. I do not believe the Supreme Court would uphold an attempt 
to try and get two Senators for something that is clearly not a State 
requiring equal rights of suffrage.
  I compliment my good friend from Connecticut, Senator Lieberman, for 
the hard battle he waged and for those in the House who worked so hard 
on this issue. I hope we can at least debate this matter. All we are 
doing today is deciding whether we are even going to allow a debate to 
occur. My gosh, when has the Senate been afraid to debate a 
constitutional issue as important as this one? This is an important 
issue. We are prepared to debate. We are prepared to see what happens.
  We know if it passes, it is going to have expedited review by the 
Supreme Court. We are prepared to accept whatever the Supreme Court 
decides to do, and those who say this is unconstitutional, per se, 
should not be afraid then. I am willing to go to the Supreme Court, and 
I will abide by whatever the Supreme Court says. I believe the Supreme 
Court would uphold this legislation because there are 600,000 people 
without a right to vote for their own representative.
  I used to be opposed to this issue. The more I studied it, the more I 
agreed with the conservative and liberal constitutional proponents and 
the more I have become an advocate for it, and I am going to continue 
to do so. I hope we can at least debate this matter and then, 
hopefully, get it out of this body and go to the Supreme Court and have 
them finally decide what should be done.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks time?

[[Page 24607]]


  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Maine is recognized.
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President. I rise to speak in support of S. 1257, 
the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2007. It is a 
measure introduced by Senator Lieberman and Senator Hatch and favorably 
reported by the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 
Affairs.
  After carefully considering the constitutional issues, I have come to 
believe, on balance, that S. 1257 is a legitimate mechanism for 
providing voting representation in the U.S. House of Representatives 
for the 600,000 Americans who live in the District of Columbia--
citizens who serve in the Armed Forces, pay Federal taxes, participate 
in Federal programs, and support a local government overseen by 
Congress--yet who cannot choose a representative with voting rights for 
the House that meets in their midst.
  S. 1257 would also correct an inequity affecting the State of Utah. 
That State fell just short of qualifying for an additional House seat 
in the last apportionment--a margin that likely would have disappeared 
had the census counted the thousands of Mormons who were out of State 
performing their religious duty as missionaries.
  As the Senate considers this legislation, much hinges on our view of 
the powers assigned, and the rights protected, by our Constitution. 
Those powers and rights were discussed at length in the May 15 hearing 
that our committee conducted on this bill.
  We heard vigorous debate from legal experts on whether the enclave 
clause of the Constitution enables Congress to provide voting 
representation in the House for the District of Columbia--as a 
corollary of its exclusive power of legislation in Federal enclaves, 
including the District. We also heard an impassioned argument that the 
bill would pass constitutional muster purely on its merits as an equal-
representation measure consistent with court rulings in civil rights 
cases.
  I recognize that other lawmakers, and some constitutional scholars, 
have expressed sincere doubts about this measure. For those who have 
such concerns, the bill now offers a powerful safeguard. During our 
June markup, the committee adopted my amendment providing for expedited 
judicial review of this legislation in the event of a legal challenge. 
Thus, the new law's legitimacy could be determined promptly by our 
Federal courts.
  My colleagues on the committee also adopted an amendment that I 
proposed concerning the scope and implications of the bill. The text 
now carries an explicit statement that the District of Columbia shall 
not be considered a State for purposes of representation in the Senate. 
This is an important distinction. Our Constitution links House 
representation to population, but it links Senate representation to 
statehood. The residents of the District of Columbia are Americans 
entitled to House representation, but they are not residents of an 
entity admitted to the Union as a State. The language added by the 
committee simply clarifies that the bill does not contemplate or 
provide support for a legislative grant of Senate representation.
  The District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2007 is a 
carefully crafted measure that provides for speedy review of any legal 
challenge. The bill's 21 sponsors and cosponsors span the liberal-to-
conservative spectrum and includes two independent Senators, as well as 
Republicans and Democrats--eloquent testimony to the fact that this is 
not a partisan measure.
  I urge my colleagues to support S. 1257, a simple matter of 
fundamental fairness for American citizens.
  Mr. President, I wish to make a final point and say again that there 
are legitimate arguments about the constitutionality of the measure 
that is before us, and that is why, when it was before the Homeland 
Security Committee, I offered an amendment which is incorporated into 
the bill to allow for expedited judicial review of its 
constitutionality. I suggest to my colleagues that we should proceed 
with this measure. If, in fact, it fails on constitutional grounds, 
that is up to the courts. But today we can stand for an important 
principle of providing a vote to the residents of the District of 
Columbia.
  I hope my colleagues will allow this bill to go forward, and I urge 
their support of this measure.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. President, I rise in strong support of S. 1257, the 
District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act. This bill would provide 
the 580,000 residents of our Nation's Capital the voting representation 
in the House of Representatives that is so long overdue. It would also 
give the State of Utah a temporary at-large seat in the House through 
the next reapportionment.
  Today's vote presents us the opportunity to grant District of 
Columbia residents the voice in ``the people's House'' that other 
Americans possess. It is time to remember the cry of our Founders that 
``taxation without representation is tyranny'' and end the 
discriminatory treatment of our Capital City's residents.
  District of Columbia citizens pay Federal taxes, and they deserve 
their full say in determining the direction of our country. They should 
have as much influence on the House and Senate floors as any other 
American over the policies that shape this Nation: our Tax Code, our 
involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan, and our laws affecting Social 
Security, health care, and childcare.
  The right to representation is a basic civil right, and this is no 
less than a moral issue. Since coming to Congress, I have supported 
full voting representation for the citizens of the District of Columbia 
that would comprise one voting member of the House of Representatives 
and two Senators. The authors of this bill have, after much 
deliberation, crafted a compromise that they believe can pass both 
Chambers and be sent to President Bush for his signature. I will 
support that compromise with the hope that one day we will be able to 
enact legislation providing full representation to the District.
  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, today we will vote on whether or not to take 
up one of the most important pieces of civil rights and voting rights 
legislation the Senate will consider in this Congress: the DC House 
Voting Rights Act of 2007. After months of careful consideration by the 
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, floor action 
on this bill has been blocked by a filibuster. We will soon see if 
there are sufficient votes to break that filibuster and enable it to 
move forward. We are in this procedural position because some of my 
Republican colleagues have persistently refused to even allow the 
Senate to take up and debate this measure, insisting on throwing up 
procedural roadblocks all along the way. I urge my colleagues to vote 
to bring this bill to the floor, and if that effort succeeds, to 
support its adoption.
  There is nothing more fundamental to the vitality and endurance of a 
democracy of the people, by the people, and for the people than the 
people's right to vote. In the words of Thomas Paine: ``The right of 
voting for representatives is the primary right by which other rights 
are protected.'' It is, in fact, the right on which all others in our 
democracy depend. The Constitution guarantees it, and the U.S. Supreme 
Court has repeatedly underscored that it is one of our most precious 
and fundamental rights as citizens.
  Although not all Americans were entitled to vote in the early days of 
the Republic, virtually all legal restrictions on the franchise have 
since been eliminated, including those based on race, sex, wealth, 
property ownership, and marital status. Americans living in the 
Nation's Capital also deserve to have voting representation in the body 
that makes their laws, taxes them, and can call them to war.
  Even with most explicit barriers to voting removed, we still have a 
way to

[[Page 24608]]

go before we get to the point where all Americans are able to 
participate without obstacle in our elections, and with confidence in 
the voting systems they use. In the 2000 Presidential election, 51.2 
percent of the eligible American electorate voted. And although in the 
2004 Presidential election voting participation reached its highest 
level since 1968, only 60.7 percent of eligible Americans voted. That 
dropped back down, in the 2006 off-year elections, to just over 40 
percent. We should do everything we can to strengthen voter 
registration efforts and to move the election reform process forward in 
this Congress, and at the same time to extend voting representation to 
the nearly 600,000 people--hard-working, taxpaying U.S. citizens who 
fight for our country and serve on juries and fulfill their other civic 
duties--who live within the borders of the District of Columbia.
  I know that some opponents argue that the reasons the Founders made 
the Nation's Capital a separate district, rather than locate it within 
a State, remain sound, and therefore we should not tinker with their 
work, even at the cost of continued disenfranchisement of DC's 
citizens. That argument ignores the fundamental commitment we all must 
have to extending the franchise to all Americans. And it ignores the 
fact that article I of the Constitution explicitly gives Congress 
legislative authority over the District ``in all cases whatsoever.'' 
The courts have over time described this power as ``extraordinary and 
plenary'' and ``full and unlimited,'' and decades of legislative and 
judicial precedents make clear that the simple word ``states'' in 
article I (which provides that the House of Representatives ``shall be 
composed of members chosen . . . by the people of the several 
states''), does not trump, Congress's legislative authority to grant 
representation in the House to citizens of the District.
  I know that Senator Hatch, Lieberman, and others have already 
thoroughly covered this important legal ground, so I will not belabor 
the history. But when even conservative legal scholars--from Judges Ken 
Starr and Patricia Wald to former Assistant Attorney General Viet 
Dinh--have done exhaustive legal analyses which outline the positive 
case for Congress ceding representational rights to citizens of the 
District, you know there is a strong case to be made. In any event, it 
is clear to me that these important constitutional questions should 
ultimately be resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court, and enactment of this 
bill would enable us to do just that. If opponents of the bill are so 
certain of their constitutional arguments, they should, it seems to me, 
allow those arguments to be tested in the full light of day, in the 
courts, and resolved once and for all. The bill provides for expedited 
consideration of appropriate court challenges. If it were to be enacted 
and then struck down because of constitutional infirmities, it would 
then be clear that a constitutional amendment is the only viable 
alternative left to DC citizens.
  This is the latest in a series of proposals to extend full rights of 
representation to voters in the District. In 1978, with overwhelming 
bipartisan support, both Chambers of Congress passed the DC voting 
rights constitutional amendment, which would have given District 
residents voting representation in the House and the Senate, by two-
thirds majority in each Chamber. The amendment required 38 States to 
ratify it, but it fell short. In 1993, the House voted to give partial 
voting representation to the DC delegate in the ``Committee of the 
Whole'' of the House, unless her vote actually determined the outcome, 
in which case it would not be counted. That is obviously no real voting 
``right'' at all, if it can be taken away when it really counts.
  There have been many differing proposals over the years to extend the 
right to vote to DC citizens, from constitutional amendments to 
statehood legislation to retrocession proposals. Since many Americans 
would be shocked to learn that something as basic as voting 
representation is now withheld from certain of our citizens, and it is 
coming in a particular historical context in which Utah is poised to 
gain an additional House seat due to its growing population, let me 
describe briefly what this bill would actually do.
  First, it would create two new permanent seats in the House of 
Representatives, one for the District of Columbia and the other for 
Utah. An election for the seat in DC would be held in 2008 and the new 
representative would be sworn in for the 111th Congress. The bill 
explicitly states that DC can only be considered one district and 
receive only one seat in all future censuses.
  It also repeals the District of Columbia delegate and other related 
language once a full voting representative is sworn into the 111th 
Congress. Finally, it would allow the State of Utah to create a Fourth 
District, not an at-large seat, using census data from 2000. The 
election for that seat would be held in 2008. This seat would be 
guaranteed to Utah for the 111th Congress and the 112th Congress until 
another census is done and new districts are made in 2012. It also 
explicitly says that the District should not be considered a State for 
the purpose of representation in the Senate; that question is left for 
another day.
  Mr. President, as my colleague Senator Hatch has observed, there are 
really two fundamental questions here for the Senate to consider. The 
first is the constitutional question about whether Congress may enact 
legislation to address this issue. The second is an essentially 
political question about whether we should enact such legislation. I 
have briefly addressed the first. On the second, I think there really 
should not be much of a debate. Citizens of the District, a majority of 
them African-Americans, who fulfill all of the duties of citizenship, 
ought to have the right to vote and be represented in Congress as 
decisions are made about their taxes, about war and peace, or about any 
of the myriad other questions that Congress faces every day.
  This is not a perfect bill. There are provisions of it that some 
oppose, and that I might have drawn differently. But it is an 
exquisitely balanced compromise, and I believe it deserves our support. 
I commend Chairman Lieberman and Ranking Minority Member Collins for 
developing the bill, and I congratulate the majority leader for 
bringing it to the floor today. We know it enjoys the support of a 
large majority of Americans--over 80 percent in national polls support 
the proposition that DC residents should be represented in Congress. I 
hope it will garner the broad support in the Senate it deserves. I urge 
my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to vote aye to enable this 
measure to come to the floor, and to support it when it does.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, today's debate involves one of the most 
important issues in our democracy. Dr. Martin Luther King called the 
right to vote ``civil right number one.'' Yet hundreds of thousands of 
Americans who live in the Nation's Capital have been denied an equal 
voice in our democracy. Citizens in the District of Columbia live in 
the very shadow of the Capitol Building, but they have no 
representative who can vote their interests within these halls. It is 
long past time for us to finally correct this basic wrong.
  I commend Senators Lieberman, Hatch, and Bennett for their strong 
leadership on this legislation.
  Since the Revolutionary War, ``No taxation without representation'' 
has been a fundamental American principle. It is a famous phrase in our 
history. James Otis said it first in a historic speech in Massachusetts 
in 1763, and it was so inspiring that John Adams later said, ``Then and 
there, the child `independence' was born.''
  Yet more than two centuries later, citizens who live in the Nation's 
Capital still bear the unfair burden of taxation without 
representation. The more than half a million District of Columbia 
residents pay significant Federal taxes each year. In fact, DC 
residents have the second-highest per capita tax burden in the Nation. 
Yet they have no say in how Federal taxes are spent, and they have no 
role in writing the Nation's tax laws.
  Residents of the District have fought and died in every war to defend 
American interests. Two hundred thirty-

[[Page 24609]]

seven DC residents died in the Vietnam war. Today, while we debate 
whether DC citizens deserve a vote in Congress, many brave Americans 
who live in the District are fighting for voting rights in Iraq. Since 
the beginning of the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, 2813 DC 
residents--2110 members of the Active Duty military and 703 members of 
the Reserve Forces--have been deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan. In the 
course of these conflicts, 28 DC residents have been wounded or killed.
  Citizens of the District of Columbia have no voice when Congress 
considers whether to go to war. The brave soldiers from the Nation's 
Capital have no representation in Congress when the votes are counted 
on funding levels for our troops and other issues relating to the war. 
When Congress debates assistance to war veterans or considers how to 
improve conditions at Walter Reed Hospital, the patriotic veterans who 
live in this city have no vote. It is unconscionable.
  If we are for democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan, we should certainly 
be for democracy in the District of Columbia as well.
  I have long been a strong supporter of DC representation in Congress. 
In 1978, I worked with Walter Fauntroy and many others on a 
constitutional amendment to correct this basic injustice. We finally 
passed the constitutional amendment in Congress, but we weren't able to 
get it ratified by a sufficient number of States to take effect. 
Because we weren't successful then, the issue remains just as urgent 
today.
  Fortunately, a constitutional amendment isn't the only option. The 
Constitution's District clause provides another, legal means for 
providing citizens of the District of Columbia a vote in Congress. As 
respected constitutional scholars have made clear, article I, section 8 
of the Constitution gives Congress the authority ``to exercise 
exclusive Legislation, in all Cases whatsoever, over such District'' of 
Columbia. The Supreme Court has ruled that Congress's exclusive 
authority over the District of Columbia is broad and ``national in the 
highest sense.''
  Some have questioned the constitutionality of this approach. Although 
I supported a constitutional amendment in the past, I disagree that a 
constitutional amendment is the only valid option. Nothing in the 
Constitution explicitly denies residents of this city a voice in 
Congress. Judges Patricia Wald and Kenneth Starr, both of whom served 
on the respected U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit, have studied 
this approach to giving the District a vote in the House of 
Representatives. Both have concluded that it is constitutional. As they 
and others have noted, the Supreme Court has recognized that Congress 
has the power to treat District of Columbia citizens as citizens of a 
State in other contexts. For instance, the District is treated as a 
State for purposes of diversity jurisdiction in Federal courts, 
although article III, section 2 of the Constitution provides for 
diversity jurisdiction in suits ``between citizens of different 
States.''
  It is impossible to believe that the Founding Fathers, having just 
finished a war to ensure democratic representation in America, would 
then insist on denying that representation to citizens living in the 
capital of their new Nation. Granting the District a vote in Congress 
is consistent with the spirit, as well as the letter, of our 
Constitution.
  Even if you disagree about the bill's constitutionality, we should 
not filibuster this important measure. Surely even my colleagues who 
have a different view of the constitutionality can agree that this 
issue is important enough to deserve an up-or-down vote. The Senate's 
filibuster of the landmark Voting Rights Act of 1965 was one of its 
darkest days. We should not repeat that mistake now.
  This is not a Republican or a Democratic issue. When we passed the 
constitutional amendment in 1978, we had strong support from 
Republicans like Senators Goldwater, Dole, and Thurmond, in addition to 
Democrats. Today, the bill has strong bipartisan support in both the 
House and Senate. That is because this issue is so obviously an issue 
of simple justice.
  The Senate Judiciary Committee recently held a hearing to celebrate 
the 50th anniversary of the Civil Rights Act of 1957. We heard moving 
testimony in favor of this bill from Congressman John Lewis, our 
distinguished colleague in the House of Representatives and a leader in 
the continuing struggle for equal voting rights. At the age of only 23, 
Congressman Lewis headed the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee 
and helped organize a march on Washington. He and others were brutally 
assaulted during the fateful voting rights march at the Edmund Pettis 
Bridge, but their sacrifices helped inspire the progress that was to 
come.
  Congressman Lewis reminded us of the sacrifices of those who gave 
their lives for equal voting rights in this country, and called on us 
to pass the DC Voting Rights Act. He reminded us of our obligation to 
give the District a vote in Congress.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for cloture on this important bill and 
then vote for final passage of the bill so that we can finally correct 
this historic wrong and to do it on our watch.
  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, S. 1257, the District of Columbia 
House Voting Rights Act of 2007, is an important and consequential 
bill.
  The bill before us would increase the 435-seat House of 
Representatives to 437 seats, by providing one seat for a voting member 
in DC, which is predominately Democratic, and one additional seat for 
Utah, which is predominately Republican. And it does it in a way that 
doesn't give advantage to one political party over the other.
  The time has come to give the District a voice and a vote in the 
House of Representatives.
  I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation.
  The legislation is sponsored by Senator Joseph Lieberman, chairman of 
the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee; Senator Orrin 
Hatch; and my distinguished ranking member on the Rules Committee, 
Senator Robert Bennett. I am a cosponsor this legislation.
  The District of Columbia occupies an interesting and unique place in 
the United States:
  It covers just 61.4 square miles, sandwiched between Virginia and 
Maryland: Yet with more than 580,000 residents, the population of the 
District surpasses that of the entire State of Wyoming. The District of 
Columbia is the seat of American government. The U.S. Congress 
determines the laws for the District; the Federal Government impacts 
the District's transportation system, health system, and police 
function. DC residents pay the second highest per capita Federal income 
taxes in the country. And District residents have sacrificed their 
lives defending our Nation. During World War I, World War II, Vietnam, 
the Korean war, and today in Iraq, they have fought for our democracy. 
Despite all this, DC residents have no vote in how the Federal 
Government operates.
  ``No taxation without representation,'' the colonists told King 
George in the late 1700s. We cannot allow this lack of representation 
to continue during the 21st century.
  Today, the District of Columbia has a nonvoting representative in 
Congress--Representative Eleanor Holmes Norton. She has been vocal in 
representing the interests of the residents of DC, but she is unable to 
cast a vote on the House floor to ensure that voice is heard. This 
makes little sense.
  We now have an opportunity to change this and to strike the right 
balance while doing it. The bill before us would add two seats to the 
House of Representatives, one for the District of Columbia and one for 
Utah.
  Utah was next in line for a fourth congressional district 
representation in the House, according to 2000 population census data. 
At that time, Utah was only 856 residents away from becoming eligible 
for an additional seat.
  So this legislation strikes the appropriate balance by allowing 
additional representation for both DC and Utah without disadvantaging 
either national political party.
  In the last 200 years, Congress has not granted House representation 
to

[[Page 24610]]

the District of Columbia by statute. Whether such a Federal law is 
constitutional has never been before the courts. As a result, critics 
of the legislation have argued that a bill providing for a vote for the 
District representative is unconstitutional. However, a bipartisan 
group of academics, judges, and lawyers argue that Congress has the 
authority and historical precedents to enact Federal law, and I agree 
with their view.
  The Constitution vests in Congress broad power to regulate national 
elections and plenary authority over DC under the District clause, 
article I, section 8, clause 17. This clause permits Congress wide 
discretion to grant rights to the District of Columbia, including for 
the purposes of congressional representation.
  From 1790 to 1800, Congress allowed District residents to vote in 
congressional elections in Virginia and Maryland. This was allowed not 
because they were residents of those States but because Congress acted 
within its District clause authority.
  Constitutional scholars from the right and the left, the most notable 
conservatives being Judge Kenneth Star and Professor Viet Dinh, believe 
this legislation is constitutional. These scholars reference the 
sweeping authority of the District clause, which provides that ``The 
Congress shall have power . . . to exercise exclusive legislation in 
all cases whatsoever'' over the District of Columbia.
  In addition to believing that Congress can pass this legislation, I 
believe there are strong reasons why it should pass this legislation.
  DC is affected, perhaps more directly than any other U.S. 
jurisdiction, by the actions of Congress.
  Citizens of the District, rich and poor, work in this town and work 
in the industries of law, policy, business, tourism, academia and 
medicine. They pay high taxes; they face the challenges of living in 
one of the major cities in the United States.
  This legislation would provide DC with permanent voting rights for 
the first time in over 200 years.
  From the Boston Tea Party and ``no taxation without representation'' 
to the suffragettes and struggles over voting rights in the 1960s, the 
goal of American society has been to bring a voice to citizens who were 
voiceless.
  Voting is the voice of democracy.
  This political limbo that Congress has placed on the District has run 
its course.
  It is time to give the District a voice and a vote in the House of 
Representatives.
  This important step can not only right this wrong but can do it 
without causing partisan rancor or disadvantage to any party. What is 
at stake here is nothing less than a fundamental fairness voting issue.
  This bill is consistent with the historical precedents of Congress's 
role in protecting and preserving the right to vote, regardless of 
color or class, age or gender, disability or original language, party 
or precinct, and geography domestic or foreign.
  It is the right thing to do, and the 21st century is the right times 
to do it.
  I urge my colleagues to join me in taking up and passing this bill on 
a majority vote in the full Senate.
  (At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to 
be printed in the Record.)
 Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, in 1978, as the majority leader of 
the United States Senate, I strongly supported and voted for H.J. Res. 
554, a joint resolution that proposed amending the Constitution to 
provide for representation of the District of Columbia in Congress. 
Unfortunately, over the next 7 years, that resolution, which had passed 
the Senate by a vote of 67 to 32, failed to obtain the approval of the 
38 States it needed for ratification under Article V of the 
Constitution.
  Today, the Senate seeks to obtain the same commendable goal of 
granting voting rights to representatives of the District of Columbia. 
The Senate seeks to do so by passing S. 1257. However, Art. 1, Sec. 2 
of the Constitution states that the House of Representatives shall be 
composed of Members chosen by the people of the several States. The 
Constitution does not refer to the people of the District of Columbia 
in this context. While I recognize that others believe that Art.1, Sec. 
8 of the Constitution authorizes the Congress to ``exercise exclusive 
legislation'' over the District, including legislation that would grant 
the District's representatives voting rights, the historical intent of 
the Founders on this point is unclear.
  I oppose S. 1257, because I doubt that our Nation's Founding Fathers 
ever intended that the Congress should be able to change the text of 
the Constitution by passing a simple bill. The ability to amend the 
Constitution in only two ways was provided with particularity in 
Article V of the Constitution for a reason. If we wish to grant 
representatives of the citizens of the District of Columbia full voting 
rights, let us do so, once again, the proper way: by passing a 
resolution to amend the Constitution consistent with its own terms.
  Now is certainly not the time for us to make it easier, rather than 
more difficult, to alter the text of the Constitution. We serve with a 
President who already believes that he can ignore the rule of law by 
issuing a simple directive, a signing statement, or an order that 
undermines the delicately balanced separation of powers, which the 
Framers so painstakingly included in the Constitution. A series of 
Federal judges is now confirming what many of us have known from the 
start: that this Administration believes it can write 200 years of 
civil liberties out of the Constitution with a simple stroke of a pen.
  We all seek the same laudable goal: to provide full Congressional 
representation and voting rights for the citizens of the District of 
Columbia. But let us accomplish that goal in the way the way the 
Founders intended--by amending the Constitution. Let us support a 
resolution to amend the Constitution that would enhance, rather than 
undermine, the rights of the 600,000 residents of the District of 
Columbia who seek a stronger voice in their government.
  Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, Our Nation was born out of a struggle 
against taxation without representation. Yet even as we endeavor to 
promote democracy around the world, it is alarming that we deny our own 
American citizens who live in the District of Columbia the right to 
representation in Congress. The nearly 600,000 residents of the 
District of Columbia have been denied voting representation in Congress 
for over 200 years. But this is not just an injustice perpetrated on DC 
residents. Their disenfranchisement tarnishes our democracy as a whole. 
The right to be represented in the national legislature is fundamental 
to our core American values, and for that reason, I am proud to 
cosponsor the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2007.
  There is no principled basis for the disenfranchisement of the 
District's residents. After the Nation's Capital was founded, citizens 
who lived in the District were represented by congressmen from Maryland 
or Virginia. They were able to make themselves heard in Congress. It 
was only in 1801 that Congress chose to strip the District of voting 
rights. As a result of this decision, for more than 200 years, the 
District's residents have been taxed like other Americans but have been 
denied a vote in the Nation's legislature. It is Congress that took 
away the District's representation. After two centuries, it is time for 
us to fix that mistake. The District's residents deserve a voice in how 
the Nation is governed.
  The people of this city are proud Americans. They pay their taxes. 
They serve with honor and distinction in our military. But yet we deny 
them the ability to fully participate in our democracy. The legislation 
before us goes a long way towards righting this wrong by giving the 
residents of the District representation in Congress that is long 
overdue.
  Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I rise to express my strong support for 
the legislation before us today to ensure that citizens of the District 
of Columbia and the State of Utah are properly represented in the U.S. 
House of Representatives.

[[Page 24611]]

  In the 1964 Wesberry v. Sanders case, Supreme Court Justice Hugo L. 
Black wrote 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.'' The bill we are considering 
today--S. 1257--serves this purpose. It would, for the first time, give 
the citizens of the District of Columbia full voting representation in 
the House of Representatives, while adding a fourth Congressional seat 
for the state of Utah, based on updated population statistics from the 
2000 Census.
  I want to thank my good friends Senators Hatch and Bennett for 
greatly increasing the possibility of success this year with their 
support for this effort. Earlier in the year, the three of us 
introduced S. 1257 as a compromise that would move us beyond the 
partisan stalemates of the past that have denied the citizens of DC 
their most precious right.
  I must also thank DC Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton and Congressman 
Tom Davis, whose persistence and bipartisan cooperation has brought us 
to where we are today. It was they who forged the original compromise 
that passed the House in April by a vote of 241-177 and is now before 
us here in the Senate.
  Notwithstanding the remarkable service of Congresswoman Norton, the 
citizens of the District of Columbia deserve more than a non-voting 
delegate in the House. They deserve a representative who can vote not 
only in committee, as Delegate Norton now does, but also on the House 
floor, which she is barred from doing.
  The fact that District residents have been without voting 
representation in Congress since the District was formed more than 200 
years ago is not only a national embarrassment, it is a grave injustice 
and at complete odds with the democratic principles on which our great 
nation was founded. America is the only democracy in the world that 
denies the citizens of its capital city this most essential right.
  And yet, the people of DC have been the direct target of terrorist 
attacks but they have no voting power over how the federal government 
provides homeland security. They have given their lives to protect our 
country in foreign wars--including the current one--but have no say in 
our foreign policy. They pay taxes, like every other American. In fact, 
they pay more: Per capita, District residents have the second-highest 
federal tax obligation in the country. Yet they have no voice in how 
high those taxes will be or how they will be spent.
  The District is also the only jurisdiction in the country that must 
seek congressional approval--through the appropriations process--before 
spending locally-generated tax dollars. So when Congress fails to pass 
appropriations bills before the beginning of the new fiscal year, the 
District's budget is essentially frozen. And yet DC has no say in our 
federal appropriations process.
  Giving the residents of DC voting representation in the House is not 
only the right and just thing to do; it has popular support. A poll 
conducted by the Washington Post earlier this year found that 61 
percent of the nation believes it is time to end centuries of bias 
against the District by giving its citizens voting representation in 
Congress.
  It helps to take a look back in history to locate the original source 
of this inequity. In 1800, when the nation's capital was established as 
the District of Columbia, an apparent oversight left the area's 
residents without Congressional representation. Maryland and Virginia 
ceded land for the capital in 1788 and 1789 respectively, but it took 
another 11 years for Congress to establish the District. In the 
interim, residents continued to vote either in Maryland or Virginia, 
but Congress withdrew those voting rights once the District was 
established. Apparently by omission, Congress neglected to establish 
new voting rights for the citizens of the new District.
  Whatever the reason for this oversight, it has no relevance to 
reality or national principles today. To have your voice heard by your 
government is central to a functioning democracy and fundamental to a 
free society.
  The Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee held a 
hearing on the bill May 15, during which we heard compelling testimony 
on the need for and constitutionality of S. 1257 from legal scholars, 
civil rights leaders, and fellow members of Congress. The bill was 
reported to the full Senate on June 13 by a bipartisan vote of 9-1.
  The primary argument against the bill that we heard at our hearing 
was the question of constitutionality. Opponents cite Article I, 
Section 2, of the Constitution which states that the House ``shall be 
composed of members chosen . . . by the people of the several states.'' 
But those words were not written in a vacuum. Just 6 sections later, 
the framers of the Constitution gave Congress authority to ``exercise 
exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever'' regarding the District. 
Numerous legal scholars, including Judge Ken Starr and former Assistant 
Attorney General Viet Dinh, both of whom have testified before Congress 
on this issue--said this broad authority is sufficient to give District 
residents full House representation.
  Congress has repeatedly used this authority to treat the District of 
Columbia as a state. In 1940, the Judiciary Act of 1789 was revised to 
broaden the definition of diversity jurisdiction, which refers to the 
authority of the federal courts to hear cases where the parties are 
from different states, to include the District of Columbia. This 
revision upheld by the courts when challenged.
  The courts have also found that Congress has the authority to impose 
federal taxes on the District; to provide a jury trial to residents of 
the District; and to include the District in interstate commerce 
regulation. These are rights and responsibilities granted to states in 
the Constitution, yet the District Clause has allowed Congress to apply 
them to DC.
  We should also remember that Congress has granted voting rights to 
Americans abroad in their last state of residence regardless of whether 
they are citizens of that state, pay taxes in that state, or have any 
intent to return to that state. Clearly, the courts have supported 
broader interpretations of Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution.
  If, after listening to these arguments, you still doubt the 
constitutionality of this legislation, I hope I can persuade you to 
support it because it is the right thing to do, and we can let the 
courts resolve the constitutional dispute at a later date, once and for 
all. S. 1257 requires expedited judicial consideration of any 
appropriate court challenge, so any question of constitutional 
interpretation will be answered promptly.
  Finally, allow me to reassure skeptics that in no way does this bill 
open the door to granting the District voting representation in the 
Senate, as some have contended. In fact, language was added in our 
Committee markup explicitly stating that DC, and I quote here, ``shall 
not be considered a state for purposes of representation in the United 
States Senate.'' End of quote. It can't get any clearer than that.
  The vote we are about to cast will decide whether the Senate should 
proceed to the bill. It is a vote on whether this legislation is worthy 
of Senate consideration. No matter where you stand on the merits of 
this bill, surely you must agree that a bill on voting representation 
and equal rights deserves consideration by the United States Senate. 
The Senate has not filibustered a civil rights bill since the summer of 
1964 when it spent 57 days including 6 Saturdays on the Civil Rights 
Act of 1964. Let us together assure the American public that the days 
of filibustering voting rights bills are over.
  The House has acted. It is now time for the Senate to do the same. 
The legislation introduced in both the House and the Senate is an 
expression of fairness and bipartisanship, an example of what we can do 
when we work across party lines as the good people of this nation have 
so often asked us to do.
  Members from both parties and both houses have finally come together 
to find a solution to break the stalemates of the past that have denied 
DC residents equal representation in the Congress of the United States. 
Now is the

[[Page 24612]]

time to give the residents of the District what they so richly deserve 
and that is the same civic entitlement that every other federal tax-
paying American citizen enjoys, no matter where he or she lives. By 
giving the citizens of the District of Columbia a genuine vote in the 
House, we will ensure not only that their voices will finally be fully 
heard. We will be following the imperatives of our national democratic 
values.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Who seeks time?
  Ms. COLLINS. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.


                             Cloture Motion

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. All time has expired. Under the previous order 
and pursuant to rule XXII, the Chair lays before the Senate the pending 
cloture motion, which the clerk will state.
  The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

                             Cloture Motion

       We, the undersigned Senators, in accordance with the 
     provisions of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 
     hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the motion to 
     proceed to Calendar No. 257, S. 1257, a bill to provide the 
     District of Columbia a voting seat, and for other purposes.
         Harry Reid, Joe Lieberman, Patrick Leahy, Russell D. 
           Feingold, Benjamin L. Cardin, Robert P. Casey, Jr., 
           Bernard Sanders, B.A. Mikulski, Byron L. Dorgan, Patty 
           Murray, Dianne Feinstein, Mary Landrieu, Kent Conrad, 
           Robert Menendez, Mark Pryor, Ken Salazar, Jim Webb.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. By unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum 
call has been waived.
  The question is, Is it the sense of the Senate that debate on the 
motion to proceed to S. 1257, a bill to provide the District of 
Columbia a voting seat and the State of Utah an additional seat in the 
House of Representatives, shall be brought to a close?
  The yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule.
  The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk called the roll.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Are there any other Senators in the Chamber 
desiring to vote?
  Mr. DURBIN. I announce that the Senator from West Virginia (Mr. Byrd) 
is necessarily absent.
  The yeas and nays resulted--yeas 57, nays 42, as follows:

                      [Rollcall Vote No. 339 Leg.]

                                YEAS--57

     Akaka
     Bayh
     Bennett
     Biden
     Bingaman
     Boxer
     Brown
     Cantwell
     Cardin
     Carper
     Casey
     Clinton
     Coleman
     Collins
     Conrad
     Dodd
     Dorgan
     Durbin
     Feingold
     Feinstein
     Harkin
     Hatch
     Inouye
     Johnson
     Kennedy
     Kerry
     Klobuchar
     Kohl
     Landrieu
     Lautenberg
     Leahy
     Levin
     Lieberman
     Lincoln
     Lugar
     McCaskill
     Menendez
     Mikulski
     Murray
     Nelson (FL)
     Nelson (NE)
     Obama
     Pryor
     Reed
     Reid
     Rockefeller
     Salazar
     Sanders
     Schumer
     Snowe
     Specter
     Stabenow
     Tester
     Voinovich
     Webb
     Whitehouse
     Wyden

                                NAYS--42

     Alexander
     Allard
     Barrasso
     Baucus
     Bond
     Brownback
     Bunning
     Burr
     Chambliss
     Coburn
     Cochran
     Corker
     Cornyn
     Craig
     Crapo
     DeMint
     Dole
     Domenici
     Ensign
     Enzi
     Graham
     Grassley
     Gregg
     Hagel
     Hutchison
     Inhofe
     Isakson
     Kyl
     Lott
     Martinez
     McCain
     McConnell
     Murkowski
     Roberts
     Sessions
     Shelby
     Smith
     Stevens
     Sununu
     Thune
     Vitter
     Warner

                             NOT VOTING--1

       
     Byrd
       
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. On this vote, the yeas are 57 and the nays are 
42. Three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn not having voted 
in the affirmative, the motion is rejected.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
  Mr. BENNETT. I move to lay that motion on the table.
  The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
  Mr. OBAMA. Mr. President, I rise today to speak about the DC voting 
rights bill that the Senate just voted on. I am disappointed that this 
measure failed to receive the necessary 60 votes in order for the bill 
to be considered.
  This is a bill that seeks to protect the most fundamental right of 
citizens in our democracy the right to vote. Different generations in 
our Nation's history have struggled to gain and safeguard this 
universal right--from the 15th amendment, which extended the right to 
vote to newly freed slaves, to the 19th amendment, which guaranteed the 
right to women, and finally to the Voting Rights Act, which gave real 
substance to voting laws that had been previously abused. Yet, as we 
speak, this most basic right in a democracy is denied to the citizens 
of the District of Columbia.
  Our brave civil rights leaders sacrificed too much to ensure that 
every American has the right to vote for us to tolerate the 
disenfranchisement of the nearly 600,000 residents of the District of 
Columbia. Those who live in our Nation's Capital pay taxes like other 
Americans. They serve bravely in the Armed Forces to defend our country 
like other Americans. They are called to sit on Federal juries like 
other Americans. Yet they are not afforded a vote in Congress. Instead, 
they are granted a nonvoting Delegate who can sit in the House of 
Representatives and serve on committees but cannot cast a vote when 
legislation comes to the floor.
  As a community organizer in Chicago and as a civil rights attorney, I 
learned that disenfranchisement can lead to disengagement from our 
political system. In many parts of DC, you can look down the street and 
see the dome of the U.S. Capitol. Yet so many of these streets couldn't 
be more disconnected from their Government.
  If we are to take seriously our claim to a government of, by, and for 
the people, Washington shouldn't be just the seat of our Government, 
but it also should reflect the core values and fundamental promise of 
our democracy. Denying the right to vote to citizens who are equally 
subject to the laws of this Nation undermines a central premise of our 
representative Government. The right to vote belongs to every American, 
regardless of race, creed, gender, or geography.
  For these reasons, I fully support this important legislation. 
Although today's vote is a disappointment, I will continue to work with 
Mayor Fenty, Congresswoman Norton, and the sponsors of this bill until 
the residents of the District of Columbia achieve full representation 
in Congress.
  Mr. REID. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SMITH. I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call 
be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. McCaskill). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.

                          ____________________