[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 5]
[House]
[Pages 7289-7315]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HOUSE VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 2007

  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 260, I call 
up the bill (H.R. 1433) to provide for the treatment of the District of 
Columbia as a Congressional district for purposes of representation in 
the House of Representatives, and for other purposes, and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 260, the 
amendment printed in House Report 110-63 is adopted and the bill, as 
amended, is considered read.
  The text of the bill, as amended, is as follows:

                               H.R. 1433

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``District of Columbia House 
     Voting Rights Act of 2007''.

     SEC. 3. TREATMENT OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AS CONGRESSIONAL 
                   DISTRICT.

       (a) Representation in House of Representatives.--
       (1) In general.--Whereas the District of Columbia is drawn 
     from the State of Maryland, notwithstanding any other 
     provision of law, the District of Columbia shall be 
     considered a Congressional district for purposes of 
     representation in the House of Representatives.
       (2) No representation provided in senate.--The District of 
     Columbia shall not be considered a State for purposes of 
     representation in the Senate.
       (b) Conforming Amendments Relating to Apportionment of 
     Members of House of Representatives.--
       (1) Inclusion of single district of columbia member in 
     reapportionment of members among states.--Section 22 of the 
     Act entitled ``An Act to provide for the fifteenth and 
     subsequent decennial censuses and to provide for 
     apportionment of Representatives in Congress'', approved June 
     28, 1929 (2 U.S.C. 2a), is amended by adding at the end the 
     following new subsection:
       ``(d) This section shall apply with respect to the District 
     of Columbia in the same manner as this section applies to a 
     State, except that the District of Columbia may not receive 
     more than one Member under any reapportionment of Members.''.

[[Page 7290]]

       (2) Clarification of determination of number of 
     presidential electors on basis of 23rd amendment.--Section 3 
     of title 3, United States Code, is amended by striking ``come 
     into office;'' and inserting the following: ``come into 
     office (subject to the twenty-third article of amendment to 
     the Constitution of the United States in the case of the 
     District of Columbia);''.
       (c) Conforming Amendments Regarding Appointments to Service 
     Academies.--
       (1) United states military academy.--Section 4342 of title 
     10, United States Code, is amended--
       (A) in subsection (a), by striking paragraph (5); and
       (B) in subsection (f), by striking ``the District of 
     Columbia,''.
       (2) United states naval academy.--Such title is amended--
       (A) in section 6954(a), by striking paragraph (5); and
       (B) in section 6958(b), by striking ``the District of 
     Columbia,''.
       (3) United states air force academy.--Section 9342 of title 
     10, United States Code, is amended--
       (A) in subsection (a), by striking paragraph (5); and
       (B) in subsection (f), by striking ``the District of 
     Columbia,''.
       (4) Effective date.--This subsection and the amendments 
     made by this subsection shall take effect on the date on 
     which a Representative from the District of Columbia takes 
     office for the One Hundred Tenth Congress.

     SEC. 4. INCREASE IN MEMBERSHIP OF HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

       (a) Permanent Increase in Number of Members.--Effective 
     with respect to the One Hundred Tenth Congress and each 
     succeeding Congress, the House of Representatives shall be 
     composed of 437 Members, including any Members representing 
     the District of Columbia pursuant to section 3(a).
       (b) Reapportionment of Members Resulting From Increase.--
       (1) In general.--Section 22(a) of the Act entitled ``An Act 
     to provide for the fifteenth and subsequent decennial 
     censuses and to provide for apportionment of Representatives 
     in Congress'', approved June 28, 1929 (2 U.S.C. 2a(a)), is 
     amended by striking ``the then existing number of 
     Representatives'' and inserting ``the number of 
     Representatives established with respect to the One Hundred 
     Tenth Congress''.
       (2) Effective date.--The amendment made by paragraph (1) 
     shall apply with respect to the regular decennial census 
     conducted for 2010 and each subsequent regular decennial 
     census.
       (c) Special Rules For Period Prior to 2012 
     Reapportionment.--
       (1) Transmittal of revised statement of apportionment by 
     president.--Not later than 30 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the President shall transmit to 
     Congress a revised version of the most recent statement of 
     apportionment submitted under section 22(a) of the Act 
     entitled ``An Act to provide for the fifteenth and subsequent 
     decennial censuses and to provide for apportionment of 
     Representatives in Congress'', approved June 28, 1929 (2 
     U.S.C. 2a(a)), to take into account this Act and the 
     amendments made by this Act.
       (2) Report by clerk.--Not later than 15 calendar days after 
     receiving the revised version of the statement of 
     apportionment under paragraph (1), the Clerk of the House of 
     Representatives, in accordance with section 22(b) of such Act 
     (2 U.S.C. 2a(b)), shall send to the executive of each State a 
     certificate of the number of Representatives to which such 
     State is entitled under section 22 of such Act, and shall 
     submit a report to the Speaker of the House of 
     Representatives identifying the State (other than the 
     District of Columbia) which is entitled to one additional 
     Representative pursuant to this section.
       (3) Requirements for election of additional member.--During 
     the One Hundred Tenth Congress, the One Hundred Eleventh 
     Congress, and the One Hundred Twelfth Congress--
       (A) notwithstanding the Act entitled ``An Act for the 
     relief of Doctor Ricardo Vallejo Samala and to provide for 
     congressional redistricting'', approved December 14, 1967 (2 
     U.S.C. 2c), the additional Representative to which the State 
     identified by the Clerk of the House of Representatives in 
     the report submitted under paragraph (2) is entitled shall be 
     elected from the State at large; and
       (B) the other Representatives to which such State is 
     entitled shall be elected on the basis of the Congressional 
     districts in effect in the State for the One Hundred Ninth 
     Congress.
       (d) Adjustment of Percentage Limitation on the Use of the 
     Preceding Year's Tax.--
       (1) In general.--The table in clause (i) of section 
     6654(d)(1)(C) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating 
     to limitation on use of preceding year's tax) is amended by 
     striking ``110'' and inserting ``110.003''.
       (2) Effective date.--The amendment made by this subsection 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 5. REPEAL OF OFFICE OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DELEGATE.

       (a) Repeal of Office.--
       (1) In general.--Sections 202 and 204 of the District of 
     Columbia Delegate Act (Public Law 91-405; sections 1-401 and 
     1-402, D.C. Official Code) are repealed, and the provisions 
     of law amended or repealed by such sections are restored or 
     revived as if such sections had not been enacted.
       (2) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection 
     shall take effect on the date on which a Representative from 
     the District of Columbia takes office for the One Hundred 
     Tenth Congress.
       (b) Conforming Amendments to District of Columbia Elections 
     Code of 1955.--The District of Columbia Elections Code of 
     1955 is amended as follows:
       (1) In section 1 (sec. 1-1001.01, D.C. Official Code), by 
     striking ``the Delegate to the House of Representatives,'' 
     and inserting ``the Representative in the Congress,'' .
       (2) In section 2 (sec. 1-1001.02, D.C. Official Code)--
       (A) by striking paragraph (6); and
       (B) in paragraph (13), by striking ``the Delegate to 
     Congress for the District of Columbia,'' and inserting ``the 
     Representative in the Congress,''.
       (3) In section 8 (sec. 1-1001.08, D.C. Official Code)--
       (A) in the heading, by striking ``Delegate'' and inserting 
     ``Representative''; and
       (B) by striking ``Delegate,'' each place it appears in 
     subsections (h)(1)(A), (i)(1), and (j)(1) and inserting 
     ``Representative in the Congress,''.
       (4) In section 10 (sec. 1-1001.10, D.C. Official Code)--
       (A) in subsection (a)(3)(A)--
       (i) by striking ``or section 206(a) of the District of 
     Columbia Delegate Act'', and
       (ii) by striking ``the office of Delegate to the House of 
     Representatives'' and inserting ``the office of 
     Representative in the Congress'';
       (B) in subsection (d)(1), by striking ``Delegate,'' each 
     place it appears; and
       (C) in subsection (d)(2)--
       (i) by striking ``(A) In the event'' and all that follows 
     through ``term of office,'' and inserting ``In the event that 
     a vacancy occurs in the office of Representative in the 
     Congress before May 1 of the last year of the 
     Representative's term of office,'' and
       (ii) by striking subparagraph (B).
       (5) In section 11(a)(2) (sec. 1-1001.11(a)(2), D.C. 
     Official Code), by striking ``Delegate to the House of 
     Representatives,'' and inserting ``Representative in the 
     Congress,''.
       (6) In section 15(b) (sec. 1-1001.15(b), D.C. Official 
     Code), by striking ``Delegate,'' and inserting 
     ``Representative in the Congress,''.
       (7) In section 17(a) (sec. 1-1001.17(a), D.C. Official 
     Code), by striking ``the Delegate to the Congress from the 
     District of Columbia'' and inserting ``the Representative in 
     the Congress''.

     SEC. 7. NONSEVERABILITY OF PROVISIONS.

       If any provision of this Act, or any amendment made by this 
     Act, is declared or held invalid or unenforceable, the 
     remaining provisions of this Act and any amendment made by 
     this Act shall be treated and deemed invalid and shall have 
     no force or effect of law.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Debate shall not exceed 1 hour and 20 
minutes, with 60 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman 
and ranking minority member of the Committee on the Judiciary, and 20 
minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
  The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Smith) each will control 30 minutes, and the gentlewoman 
from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) and the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may 
consume.
  This is an historic moment indeed. I am honored to lead the floor 
management of a bill that we have been waiting so long to debate and 
hopefully move forward from the House of Representatives.
  This is an important moment in American history. We must now act to 
discontinue the disenfranchisement of citizens in the Nation's Capital. 
We must act to complete the important unfinished business of our 
democracy.
  All of you here are all too familiar with the struggle for D.C. 
voting rights. I remember Chairman Emanuel Celler, chairman of the 
House Judiciary Committee, when the House gave the District a vote in 
1967. I remember Delegate Walter Fauntroy's and Senator Ed Brooke's 
pursuit of the District's representation in 1978. I have now had the 
privilege of working with the distinguished gentlewoman, the Delegate 
from the District of Columbia, Eleanor Holmes Norton, a tireless, 
relentless, brilliant advocate of the effort that brings us here today.
  Right now we are attempting to resolve what could not be resolved 
before, through the bipartisan efforts of so many. Mr. Davis of 
Virginia, Mr. Cannon of Utah, Mr. Matheson and Mr.

[[Page 7291]]

Bishop have gotten us this far today, but I would be remiss if I did 
not name the former chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Jim 
Sensenbrenner, who helped bring us so close to passage of this 
legislation in the last Congress. I thank all of you for the important 
work that has led us to this great and wonderful day.
  Now, the bill before us today has a novel proposal, but it is one 
that we have seen before. We are now here today to finish the important 
work on this measure that we almost completed when we adjourned the 
last Congress. We are here today to finish the job.
  As the only democracy in the world where citizens living in the 
capital city are denied their representation in the National 
Legislature, we come here to repair this obvious defect. Nearly 600,000 
people who call the District of Columbia home, who pay taxes, who fight 
and die in the military, do not have a vote in the Congress. They do 
not have a vote in the Congress. That is what brings us here today. I 
am talking about people like one of its citizens, Andy Shallal, a local 
business owner and an Iraqi American.
  Thousands of American soldiers, including District residents, have 
given their lives in fighting for democracy in Iraq. Because of their 
sacrifice, Andy can vote for the national legislature in Iraq but is 
denied a vote for his own Member of Congress in Washington, District of 
Columbia.
  So District residents like Andy and all those who share the 
responsibilities of U.S. citizenship deserve voting representation in 
this Congress, and I believe that most in this body agree with me. I 
believe that H.R. 1433 is a sound policy response to this inequity. 
While some have raised questions and we have debated, we have had 
constitutional scholars from across the country join us in analyzing 
the way that we have put this measure together. I am totally and 
confidently satisfied that we have a bill that passes constitutional 
muster. We have a bill that can finally end the disenfranchisement of 
District residents.
  The legislation relies obviously on Article I, section 8, clause 17, 
which provides Congress with the authority to give the District a vote. 
The Supreme Court has held that Congress's exclusive authority over the 
District is ``national in the highest sense.'' The D.C. Circuit Court 
has held that the Congress has ``extraordinary and plenary power'' over 
the District. The District of Columbia Court of Appeals has found the 
District Clause to be ``sweeping and inclusive in character.''
  Distinguished conservatives, we emphasize that this is not a partisan 
measure. Thoughtful scholars like Viet Dinh, judges and scholars like 
Ken Starr, whom I have never cited or quoted before now, and our former 
colleague Jack Kemp, just to name a few, agree that the Congress has 
the power through simple legislation to give the District of Columbia a 
vote.
  We have used the District Clause to treat the District like a State 
repeatedly: for diversity jurisdiction, for 11th amendment immunity, 
for alcohol regulation, for interstate transportation, for apprentice 
labor, for the collection of State income taxes, the list goes on and 
on. Surely, we cannot say that we cannot give them, the District 
residents, a vote in the same way that we have handled so many other 
matters.
  I am confident that we can pair the District of Columbia with Utah 
and give Utah an at-large seat. Article I, section 4 gives Congress 
ultimate authority over Federal elections. The one person, one vote 
principle will be left intact. No vote will be compromised or diluted. 
None of their vote will be lost, nor will it be expanded. Utah voters 
will be given an equal opportunity to elect an at-large Representative 
on a temporary basis and a District Representative.
  This fight has been long, 200 years too long. We can debate this 
issue to no end, but at the end of the day, if District residents 
remain disenfranchised, we ought to be ashamed. We have a sound, 
bipartisan proposal before us, and I am happy to entertain the 
discussion on both sides of the aisle that will proceed at this time.
  I want to thank those of our Republican colleagues in the House who 
have already seen fit to make it clear that they, too, will be joining 
with us to make this a bipartisan solution to an old problem. I am 
proud to think and hope that D.C. disenfranchisement will come to an 
end.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Madam Speaker, I oppose this legislation because it is clearly 
unconstitutional. While the bill may be well-intentioned, as Members of 
Congress, we swear an oath to support our Constitution. We cannot gloss 
over its deficiencies.
  At the Judiciary Committee hearing on this bill, Professor Jonathan 
Turley, someone the majority consults frequently for his views, said, 
``Permit me to be blunt, I consider this act to be the most 
premeditated unconstitutional act by Congress in decades.''
  Supporters of this bill claim Congress owes the authority to enact 
this bill under a broad reading of the so-called District Clause in 
Article I, section 8. However, Article I, section 2 says, ``The House 
of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second 
Year by the People of the several States.'' Since D.C. is not a State, 
it cannot have a voting Member in the House.
  This was an issue that was clearly raised, debated and rejected by 
the Founding Fathers. Alexander Hamilton offered an amendment to the 
Constitution during the New York ratification convention that would 
have allowed Congress to provide the District with congressional 
representation, but his amendment was rejected by the convention on 
July 22, 1788.
  More recently in 2000, a Federal district court here in D.C. spoke on 
the issue, stating, ``We conclude from our analysis of the text that 
the Constitution does not contemplate that the District may serve as a 
State for purposes of the apportionment of congressional 
representatives.''
  The House Judiciary Committee has already spoken on this point as 
well in the 95th Congress. Under the leadership of Democratic Chairman 
Peter Rodino, the Judiciary Committee reported out a constitutional 
amendment to do what this bill purports to be able to do by statute. 
The report accompanying that constitutional amendment stated the 
following, ``If the citizens of the District are to have voting 
representation in the Congress, a constitutional amendment is 
essential; statutory action alone will not suffice.''
  Congress passed that constitutional amendment in 1978, but it failed 
to get the approval of three-quarters of the States over a 7-year 
period. In fact, only 16 of the 38 States required for its ratification 
supported the amendment.
  So what is being attempted by the legislation before us today is 
something long recognized as requiring a constitutional amendment that 
the vast majority of States have already failed to approve. Proponents 
of this legislation cite a 1949 Supreme Court case called Tidewater, 
but the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service issued a report 
analyzing that case. It concluded that ``at least six of the Justices 
who participated in what appears to be the most relevant Supreme Court 
case, National Mutual Insurance Co. of the District of Columbia v. 
Tidewater Transfer Co., authored opinions rejecting the proposition 
that Congress's power under the District Clause was sufficient to 
effectuate structural changes to the political structures of the 
Federal Government.
  ``Further, the remaining three judges, who found that Congress could 
grant diversity jurisdiction to District of Columbia citizens despite 
the lack of such jurisdiction in Article III, specifically limited 
their opinion to instances where there was no extension of anymore 
fundamental right,'' such as the right to vote for a Member of 
Congress.

                              {time}  1230

  The unconstitutional approach of this bill is completely unnecessary. 
Most of the District of Columbia, other than a few Federal buildings, 
could simply be returned to the State of Maryland. That process of 
retrocession is clearly allowed by the Constitution.

[[Page 7292]]

It would grant representation to those in Washington D.C., by a simple 
majority vote, and they would then have representation in both the 
House and Senate, an improvement over this bill that limits 
representation only to the House.
  Any discrepancies regarding the number of electorates granted to D.C. 
by the 23rd amendment could easily be corrected through a 
constitutional amendment once D.C. Members were represented in Congress 
through retrocession. Madam Speaker, even conceding for purposes of 
argument the proponents' interpretation of the vast breadth of the 
District clause, this bill unfairly subjects many citizens to unequal 
treatment.
  H.R. 1433 grants Utah an additional Representative that will run at-
large or statewide. The at-large provision creates a situation this 
country has not seen since the development of the Supreme Court's line 
of cases affirming the principle of ``one man, one vote.''
  Under this provision, voters in Utah would be able to vote for two 
Representatives, their district representative and the at-large 
representative, whereas voters in every other State would only be able 
to vote for their one district representative. The result would be that 
Utah voters would have disproportionately more voting power compared to 
the voters of every other State.
  There is no question D.C. residents have fought bravely in wars and 
served their country in a variety of ways. That is interesting, even 
heartrending, but irrelevant to whether or not this legislation is 
constitutional.
  I also ask this House to consider the serious, practical consequences 
of passing this legislation. The inevitable legal challenge to this 
bill could produce legislative chaos by placing into doubt any future 
legislation passed in Congress by a one-vote margin.
  Madam Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill because it is 
clearly unconstitutional, and, if enacted, could lead to years of 
protracted legislation.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds, and I include 
for the Record the 25 legal scholars of constitutional authority who 
have already weighed in on this bill, plus the former elected officials 
and former Senators and Members of Congress and Presidential appointees 
that have all examined this with great care and find that it is not 
constitutionally defective.


                                                      DC Vote,

                                   Washington, DC, March 12, 2007.

    25 Legal Scholars Support Constitutionality of DC Voting Rights

       Dear Representative: DC residents pay federal income taxes, 
     serve on juries and die in wars to defend American democracy, 
     but they do not have voting representation in the Congress.
       This lack of representation is inconsistent with our 
     nation's core democratic principles. Justice Hugo Black put 
     it well in Wesberry v. Sanders in 1964: ``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. Other rights, even the most basic, 
     are illusory if the right to vote is undermined.''
       Congress is currently considering granting voting rights to 
     Americans living in Washington, DC. Lawmakers have been faced 
     with questions about the constitutionality of extending the 
     right to vote to residents of a ``non-state.''
       As law professors and scholars, we would like to address 
     these questions and put to rest any concerns about the 
     constitutionality of extending the right of representation to 
     residents of the District.
       While the language of the Constitution literally requires 
     that House members be elected ``by the People of the Several 
     states,'' Congress has not always applied this language so 
     literally. For example, the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens 
     Absentee Voting Act allows U.S. citizens living abroad to 
     vote in congressional elections in their last state of 
     residence--even if they are no longer citizens there, pay any 
     taxes there, or have any intent to return.
       To fully protect the interests of people living in the 
     capital, the Framers gave Congress extremely broad authority 
     over all matters relating to the federal district under 
     Article I, Sec. 8, clause 17 (the ``District Clause''). 
     Courts have ruled that this clause gives Congress 
     ``extraordinary and plenary power'' over DC and have upheld 
     congressional treatment of DC as a ``state'' for purposes of 
     diversity jurisdiction and interstate commerce, among other 
     things. Article III provides that courts may hear cases 
     ``between citizens of different states'' (diversity 
     jurisdiction). The Supreme Court initially ruled that under 
     this language, DC residents could not sue residents of other 
     states. But in 1940, Congress began treating DC as a state 
     for this purpose--a law upheld in D.C. v. Tidewater Transfer 
     Co. (1949).
       The Constitution also allows Congress to regulate commerce 
     ``among the several states,'' which, literally, would exclude 
     DC. But Congress' authority to treat DC as a ``state'' for 
     Commerce Clause purposes was upheld in Stoughtenburg v. 
     Hennick (1889).
       We believe, under the same analysis of the Constitution, 
     that Congress has the power through ``simple'' legislation to 
     provide voting representation in Congress for DC residents.
       Sincerely,
         Sheryll D. Cashin, Georgetown University Law Center; Viet 
           D. Dinh, Georgetown University Law Center; Charles J. 
           Ogletree, Harvard Law School; Jamin Raskin, American 
           University Washington College of Law; Samuel R. 
           Bagenstos, Washington University Law School; Brian L. 
           Baker, San Joaquin College of Law; William W. Bratton, 
           Georgetown University Law Center; Richard Pierre 
           Claude, University of Maryland; Sherman Cohn, 
           Georgetown University Law Center; Peter Edelman, 
           Georgetown University Law Center; James Forman Jr., 
           Georgetown University Law Center; David A. Gantz, The 
           University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law.
         Michael Gottesman, Georgetown University Law Center; 
           Michael Greenberger, University of Maryland; Pat King, 
           Georgetown University Law Center; Charles R. Lawrence 
           III, Georgetown University Law Center; Paul Steven 
           Miller, University of Washington School of Law; James 
           Oldham, Georgetown University Law Center; Christopher 
           L. Peterson University of Florida, Levin College of 
           Law; Robert Pitofsky, Georgetown University Law Center; 
           David Schultz, University of Minnesota; Girardeau A. 
           Spann, Georgetown University Law Center; Ronald S. 
           Sullivan Jr., Yale Law School; Roger Wilkins, George 
           Mason University; Wendy Williams, Georgetown University 
           Law Center.
                                  ____



                                                      DC Vote,

                                   Washington, DC, March 12, 2007.
     Re 25 former elected and appointed officials support DC 
         Voting Rights Act.

       Dear Member of Congress: We are writing to ask you to 
     extend the basic American right of voting representation in 
     Congress to Americans living in our nation's capital.
       Citizens living in Washington, DC pay federal taxes, serve 
     on juries, and send their family members to protect our 
     nation during times of war. They should no longer be denied 
     the very essence of our democratic ideals.
       Representative Tom Davis, Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, 
     and many others have reached across party lines in crafting a 
     bill, the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 
     2007 (DC Voting Rights Act, H.R. 1433), which corrects this 
     injustice by providing Washingtonians with a full voting 
     member of the U.S. House of Representatives for the first 
     time in the history of our country. These members of Congress 
     should be congratulated for their principled courage and 
     patriotism.
       The time has come for all DC residents to have a vote in 
     our national legislature. We ask that you support this bill 
     so that Washingtonians will enjoy the fundamental, democratic 
     right to representation--a right which, as a nation, we are 
     promoting all around the world.
           Sincerely,
         Jack Kemp, Julius W. Becton, Jr., Ed Brooke, Lawrence 
           Eagleburger, Eric Holder, Thomas P. Melady, Susan 
           Molinari, J.C. Watts, Harris Wofford.
         Clifford Alexander, Jim Blanchard, Dale Bumpers, Peter 
           Edelman, Frank Keating, Kweisi Mfume, Sharon Pratt, 
           Togo West.
         John Anderson, Sherwood Boehlert, Tom Daschle, Alexis 
           Herman, Timothy May, George Mitchell, Michael Steele, 
           Anthony A. Williams.

  Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished majority leader.
  Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, this important legislation, the District of 
Columbia House Voting Rights Act, is designed to do one thing, 
enfranchise Americans fully with a voting representative in the House 
of Representatives. I have the great honor of representing the great 
State of Maryland. Maryland, at the request of the Federal Government, 
gave some square miles of its State to our Federal Government and to 
the people of America.
  At that time there were Marylanders living, just a few, but 
Marylanders living within the confines of what was to become the 
District of Columbia. Now,

[[Page 7293]]

this was post-1787, so that the miracle in Philadelphia did not 
contemplate disenfranchising those voters in the various States, as my 
friend from Texas mentioned, because the residents that then became, 
because of the generosity of the State of Maryland, residents of that 
Federal district, were then residents of the several States.
  Washington, D.C. is the only capital in a democracy in the world, in 
the entire world, that does not have a voting representative in its 
parliament, in the world. Clearly, the successor residents of the 
District of Columbia succeed residents of the several States. The 
continued disenfranchisement of more than half a million Americans is 
unconscionable, is indefensible and wrong.
  Since 1801, when Washington, D.C. became this Nation's capital, the 
citizens of the District of Columbia have not had representation in the 
Congress, not in the House of Representatives and not in the Senate. It 
is wrong, as a matter of principle, because District citizens pay 
Federal taxes, sit on juries and serve on our Armed Forces, like all 
other Americans who enjoy full representation in this body do.
  If they move tomorrow to Maryland or to Virginia or to Texas or to 
California, they will be fully enfranchised. They are not second-class 
citizens, but the area in which they live is being treated as a second-
class area, this, the Nation's capital. You cannot cite another capital 
in the world that does that if they allow any of their voters to be 
represented in a true democratic institution.
  It is wrong politically, because District citizens since 1801 have 
effectively been a ward of Congress without the opportunity to make 
their voice felt on the legislation that affects only them. Ironically 
on this bill, we are going to again have a motion to recommit, which 
affects only the residents of the District of Columbia.
  It is wrong, I suggest to you, morally as well, because the United 
States professes to have the truest form of representative government 
in human history. We are proud of that, rightfully so. Yet we deprive 
the citizens of this Nation's capital of their voice in their national 
legislature.
  Let me add, the United States is the only representative democracy, 
as I have said, that does that. The absence of representation in 
Congress for District citizens underscores the failure of the Congress 
to use the authority vested in it, by the Constitution, to correct an 
injustice.
  I want to say to my friends in this body, so many of you have voted 
``aye'' on propositions that only recently the Supreme Court of the 
United States has said are unconstitutional. You put in language to 
say, oh, well, it's constitutional because of X, Y and Z, to try to 
substitute our judgment for the judgment of the Supreme Court of the 
United States, but repeatedly you have voted for legislation which the 
Supreme Court has said is unconstitutional, and you know it.
  We have spent $379 billion, 3,200 lives. We will vote tomorrow on a 
bill that seeks to spend $100 billion more so that the citizens of 
Baghdad, the citizens of Baghdad can have a parliament in which the 
citizens of Baghdad have a vote; but too many will vote not to give the 
same right to our sisters and brothers who live in the District of 
Columbia.
  The authority I refer to for the constitutionality of this is, of 
course, Article I, section 8 of the Constitution, is the so-called seat 
of government clause, under which ``The Congress shall have power . . . 
to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever,'' exclusive 
legislation in all cases whatsoever, for as I remind you, those 
residents of the several States or their successors, who are now 
residents of the District of Columbia.
  Plain and simple, this sweeping language gives Congress 
``extraordinary and plenary'' powers over our Nation's capital city, 
including the authority to adopt legislation to enfranchise the 
District's 550,000 Americans with a full vote in this House.
  I am far from alone in my view of Article I, section 8. Twenty-five 
legal scholars, which have just been entered into the Record, make that 
assertion.
  As the chairman of the committee, I am not used to quoting Kenneth 
Starr, and I quote Kenneth Starr, not as the supreme expert, but 
certainly as not a partisan of my party.
  In fact, I would remind every Member of this House, this bill was 
reported out of the Republican-chaired, Republican-majority Government 
Reform Committee just last Congress.
  Mr. Davis is a cosponsor, not only a Republican leader, but the 
former chairman of a committee and former chairman of the Republican 
Congressional Campaign Committee, not just a back-bencher, but a leader 
in the party, who said this is constitutional, but in any event, it is 
the right thing to do.
  Mr. Starr's tightly reasoned testimony before the House Government 
Reform Committee in 2004 in favor of the substance of today's measure 
should be required reading for every Member of the body who believes 
that somehow this may be a partisan vote. In fact, as we mentioned, we 
give to Utah as well, as has been historical practice, to usually do 
two at a time, as we did Alaska and Hawaii.
  That doesn't unusually enfranchise, I would suggest, Utah's voters. I 
come from a State that had an at-large Representative for most of the 
1960s. His name was Carlton Sickles. He lived in the county in which I 
grew up. He was an at-large Representative, yes, before Reynolds v. 
Sims and Baker v. Carr, but that was for the State legislature 
purposes. He was an at-large Representative in the State of Maryland. I 
am not sure that anybody here served with him.
  We, the Members of this House, must never be seduced into thinking 
there is such a thing as settled injustice. Here me, settled injustice. 
The author of the Dred Scott decision was a Marylander. There is a 
statue of him, a bust of him, as you enter the old Supreme Court 
Chamber.
  That was the constitutional law. It was wrong. It was wrong legally, 
it was wrong ethically, and it was certainly wrong morally. It is time, 
my friends, in this body, today, to stand up, speak out for democracy 
and justice for our fellow Americans. If we can fight for democracy in 
Baghdad, we can vote for democracy in Washington, D.C.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds.
  Madam Speaker, I certainly agree with the majority leader on one 
point that he made and that is that Washington, D.C. is distinctive. 
However, it is especially distinctive because it is the only capital in 
the world that exists under the U.S. Constitution, and that is why this 
bill is unconstitutional.
  Madam Speaker, I include for printing in the Record the Statement of 
Administration Policy in opposition to this bill.

  Statement of Administration Policy: H.R. 1433--District of Columbia 
                    House Voting Rights Act of 2007


        (del. norton (d) district of columbia and 17 cosponsors)

       The Administration strongly opposes passage of H.R. 1433. 
     The bill violates the Constitution's provisions governing the 
     composition and election of the United States Congress. 
     Accordingly, if H.R. 1433 were presented to the President, 
     his senior advisers would recommend that he veto the bill.
       The Constitution limits representation in the House to 
     representatives of States. Article I, Section 2 provides: 
     ``The House of Representatives 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.'' The Constitution also contains 11 other 
     provisions expressly linking congressional representation to 
     Statehood.
       The District of Columbia is not a State. Accordingly, 
     congressional representation for the District of Columbia 
     would require a constitutional amendment. Advocates of 
     congressional representation for the District have long 
     acknowledged this. As the House Judiciary Committee stated in 
     recommending passage of such a constitutional amendment in 
     1975:
       ``If the citizens of the District are to have voting 
     representation in the Congress, a constitutional amendment is 
     essential; statutory action alone will not suffice. This is 
     the case because provisions for elections of Senators and 
     Representatives in the Constitution are stated in terms of 
     the States, and the District of Columbia is not a State.''

[[Page 7294]]

       Courts have reached the same conclusion. In 2000, for 
     example, a three-judge panel concluded ``that the 
     Constitution does not contemplate that the District may serve 
     as a state for purposes of the apportionment of congressional 
     representatives.'' Adams v. Clinton, 90 F. Supp. 2d 35, 46-47 
     (D.D.C. 2000). The Supreme Court affirmed that decision. And 
     just two months ago, Congress's own Research Service found 
     that, without a constitutional amendment, it is ``likely that 
     the Congress does not have authority to grant voting 
     representation in the House of Representatives to the 
     District of Columbia.''
       Recent claims that H.R. 1433 should be viewed as an 
     exercise of Congress's ``exclusive'' legislative authority 
     over the District of Columbia as the seat of the Federal 
     government are not persuasive. Congress's exercise of 
     legislative authority over the District of Columbia is 
     qualified by other provisions of the Constitution, including 
     the Article I requirement that representation in the House of 
     Representatives is limited to the ``several States.'' 
     Congress cannot vary that constitutional requirement under 
     the guise of the ``exclusive legislation'' clause, a clause 
     that provides the same legislative authority over Federal 
     enclaves like military bases as it does over the District.
       For all the foregoing reasons, enacting H.R. 1433's 
     extension of congressional representation to the District 
     would be unconstitutional. It would also call into question 
     (by subjecting to constitutional challenge in the courts) the 
     validity of all legislation passed by the reconstituted House 
     of Representatives.

  Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Sensenbrenner), a former chairman of the Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Madam Speaker, the Judiciary Committee is supposed 
to be the legislative guardian of the Constitution. Unfortunately in 
this instance, the majority gets an F. This bill is fraught with 
constitutional questions.
  All I need to do is to go back to the report that was issued by then-
Chairman Peter Rodino, a Democratic and a liberal icon, when he 
reported out a constitutional amendment enfranchising the District of 
Columbia in 1978. That committee report clearly said that giving a vote 
to the representative of the District of Columbia in this House could 
not be done statutorily.

                              {time}  1245

  And that is exactly what is happening today. And not only can't it be 
done statutorily, but the Rules Committee last night played a partisan 
card. It rejected all proposed amendments, including constructive 
amendments that eliminate some of the legal and constitutional problems 
relating to the at-large seat in Utah, as well as an amendment offered 
by my friend from Texas (Mr. Smith) to have an expedited review of the 
United States Supreme Court, a review that we gave to the McCain-
Feingold law on campaign finance.
  There are constitutional questions on this issue. And in the year 
2000, the Federal court of D.C. expressly said that, ``We conclude from 
our analysis that the text of the Constitution does not contemplate 
that the District may serve as a State for purposes of apportionment of 
congressional representatives.'' That case was Adams v. Clinton that 
was decided in the year 2000. Now, that was the more recent case than 
the Tidewater case which is being used by the proponents of this 
legislation as saying that the District clause allows us to do this.
  Now, rather than enfranchising the citizens of the District in a 
constitutionally questionable manner, why not do it in a way that is 
very clearly constitutional? There are three ways to do this, all of 
which have been rejected by the majority. One is to repropose the 
amendment to the Constitution which failed in 1978. Second is to admit 
the non-Federal part of the District as a separate State, with two 
Senators and two Representatives. That was rejected in 1993, but could 
be reintroduced. And the third is to retrocede the non-Federal part of 
the District to Maryland. We can do it the right way. Those are the 
right ways; this is the wrong way.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to point out 
that a constitutional amendment could take 10 years, who knows, to have 
a part of a State ceded back. The three methods that have been 
suggested by the former chairman of Judiciary Committee, who has worked 
very hard on this, are, in effect, impractical.
  Madam Speaker, I am pleased now to recognize the chairman of the 
Constitutional Subcommittee on the Judiciary, Mr. Nadler, who has done 
extraordinary work in this regard, 5 minutes.
  Mr. NADLER. Madam Speaker, it is a disgrace, a blot on our Nation 
that the citizens of our Capital do not have a voice in Congress.
  Whatever technical issues there may be with respect to rectifying 
this problem, we must never lose sight of the fact that our democracy 
is permanently stained by the disenfranchisement of a large group of 
our citizens who pay taxes, serve in our wars, work in our government, 
and bear all the responsibilities, but do not have all the rights of 
citizenship.
  Whether you took a cab to work today or rode the Metro or bought a 
cup of coffee or walked down the sidewalk or were protected by a police 
officer, your safety, your livelihood, every aspect of your life was 
made possible by people who have no vote in our democratic society. 
There is no excuse for that.
  Now, we have heard from people who say, well, we should change this, 
but let's amend the Constitution. We have tried that. Very difficult.
  We have heard from people who say, well, we should change this, but 
let's do it another way that will take forever and that haven't worked. 
This way we are told, doing it by statute, giving the District of 
Columbia a vote in the House by statute, is unconstitutional.
  Well, it is not unconstitutional. The fact is the Constitution says 
that the Congress shall have power to exercise exclusive legislation in 
all cases whatsoever over such District, as may, by cession of 
particular States, become the seat of the Government of the United 
States. Exclusive jurisdiction. Very plenary power.
  The Constitution also says in Article III, discussing the powers of 
Federal courts: The judicial power shall extend to controversies 
between citizens of different States, so-called diversity jurisdiction.
  One of the earlier cases cited by the Supreme Court was that citizens 
of the District of Columbia have standing to go into Federal court and 
sue citizens of a different State, of any State under diversity 
jurisdiction, because the District of Columbia, for that purpose at 
least, is considered a State, and the Supreme Court was very clear on 
this. And if the District of Columbia is a State for purposes of 
diversity jurisdiction under Article III of the Constitution, there is 
no reason why Congress cannot take advantage of that fact and legislate 
under its exclusive jurisdiction clause that the District of Columbia 
is a State for purposes of representation in the House of 
Representatives.
  The judicial cases are fairly clear. We have ample constitutional 
authority to do this, and we should take that up. Let those who are 
opposed to American citizens having taxation without representation, 
let those who are supportive of American citizens be subjected to 
taxation without representation, let those who are opposed to American 
citizens having the full rights of citizens, let them go to court and 
argue that it is unconstitutional. Let us assert our authority, because 
we believe it is constitutional. The courts will ultimately decide if 
the Bush administration continues to oppose this bill and has 
threatened to veto.
  What I don't hear from the administration is any concern about the 
injustice of depriving D.C. citizens of the right to vote, which speaks 
volumes about the administration's hostility to voting rights.
  If we are to have the audacity to hold ourselves out to the world as 
a beacon of freedom and democracy, if we want to lecture other 
countries about the importance of freedom and democracy, as this 
Congress and the President regularly seek to do, we need to clean up 
our own House. I urge passage of this bill.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from California, Mr. Daniel E. Lungren, a member of the Judiciary 
Committee and a former attorney general of the State of California.
  Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California. Madam Speaker, after listening

[[Page 7295]]

to several Members on the other side of the aisle, I can only come to 
one conclusion; and that is, the U.S. Constitution is an inconvenient 
thing.
  We have heard that it may take too long to do it the constitutional 
way. We have even heard suggested here that, if you oppose this, you 
are against voting rights.
  Well, as a former prosecutor, I can tell you I am absolutely, morally 
convinced of certain people who are not convicted of crimes they 
committed because of constitutional protections given them during 
trial; the Constitution was inconvenient, the Constitution did not 
allow us to do justice. But the Constitution prevailed, because if we 
ignore the Constitution, we ignore the very compact which is the basis 
of our relationship with our government. The vote today is more about 
the representational status of the District of Columbia in this body. 
It goes to the heart of constitutional governance.
  Some in this House would have us believe that the Constitution is so 
sophisticated, so foreign, so strange that the words used, that only a 
few people can define its meaning, that the people of America are not 
capable of understanding the words of the Constitution, and, therefore, 
we should genuflect at the altar of the elite.
  Well, let's look at the words. Article I, section 2 states very 
simply: The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members 
chosen by the people of the several States. By the people of the 
several States.
  It says in Article I, section 2: No person shall be a representative 
who shall not have attained the age of 25, been 7 years a citizens of 
the United States, and who shall not when elected be an inhabitant of 
the State in which he shall be chosen.
  Madam Speaker, those words are so simple, and yet we try to make them 
so complicated. Let's at least uphold the Constitution in this debate.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds. I refer the 
former attorney general of the State of California to the list we have 
right now about 10 decisions in which reviews, under the constitutional 
authority, D.C. as a State.
  Madam Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 5 minutes to the 
distinguished lady, a member of the committee and who has served with 
great distinction on the House Judiciary Committee for constitutional 
questions, Sheila Jackson-Lee of Houston, Texas.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Conyers, may I pay tribute to you? It 
gives me such a privilege to be able to come to this floor with you as 
the chairperson of the House Judiciary Committee, along with the 
ranking member, who is a friend and colleague from Texas. But it is a 
special honor, and it humbles many of us, because a lot of us were not 
here for the debate on the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voter 
Rights Act of 1965. Many Americans think that that bill only pertains 
and helps people of color, but really what it does is it restores that 
legislation, the value and the preciousness of the right to vote for 
all Americans. I am gratified that Chairman Conyers, who has a history 
with restoring the rights of Americans to vote, now finds himself on 
the floor in the doorway of history to be able to reaffirm the 
Constitution.
  And I heard my good friend, and I am glad that you will hear from my 
colleague from Texas, Congressman Al Green, who spent a few days on the 
bench and I think would recognize a Constitution when he would see it. 
But I think this is important, because if the American people are 
listening, there is some suggestion, what kind of irreverent actions 
are occurring on this floor? Why are we ignoring the Constitution? And 
I take great umbrage with that. I am sensitive to that. My very fabric 
of my existence is embedded in the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendment. I 
want the Constitution to be cherished, and I want it to be right.
  So let me just recount for you why we can move from one section to 
the next, and it relates to the constitutionality of what we are doing. 
And I would only hope that my friends would not be rejecting this bill 
because, in fact, it is the District of Columbia. And let me remind 
America that Utah is given an opportunity for its citizens to be 
represented.
  But in 1820, the Supreme Court held that Congress could impose 
Federal taxes on the District, and it was related to the provision in 
here that says representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned 
among the several States. So we tax them based upon language in the 
Constitution that they equal the States.
  Then in 1889, the Supreme Court found that the constitutional 
prohibition against State laws that interfere with commerce applies to 
States and the District of Columbia, again equating the District of 
Columbia to States.
  And then in 1934, the Supreme Court found that Congress could treat 
the District of Columbia as a State.
  So in the Constitution it says that: The House of Representatives 
shall be composed of Members chosen every second year by the people of 
several States.
  But it also says that this Congress has jurisdiction in clause 17 
under section 8 over the District of Columbia, and that is what we are 
doing here today. We are correcting a wrong, an ill. We are correcting 
a disease. We are equating this city to the rights of Iraqis, who are 
now able to vote for all of those they want to vote for, albeit it is 
in a troubled situation.
  And so I would simply commend my colleagues to this, and to suggest 
that there was something wrong in the rule for not asking for an 
expedited Supreme Court review, my friends, the Supreme Court will be 
able to deliberate on this particular legislation in due time and be 
able to render a decision and expedited request warrants or suggests 
there should be a crisis. There was not an expedited request in the 
election of 2000, and the Supreme Court decided it in 4 or 5 days. For 
me, that was an emergency.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, if the gentlelady will yield, I ask her, 
why would we be asking for special standing, we in the Congress? Why 
would we be asking for an expedited review? Can't the courts decide who 
gets either of those two special privileges to come to the front of the 
line?

                              {time}  1300

  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Let me thank the gentleman for his inquiry. 
He made a very good point: can't the courts reconcile the issues 
between the two parties on their own expedited time. They can. And that 
is the example I used with the issue in the election of 2000. As you 
well know, that case, Gore v. Bush, went to the United States Supreme 
Court on their own expediting, and a decision was made between four or 
five days.
  My friends, this is a smoke-and-mirror issue. We welcome the Supreme 
Court's review. But today, we are holding up the Constitution, and I 
hope that as we hold it up, we will reflect upon those whose blood has 
been shed on behalf of this country, that we are giving them the right 
to vote legally, and under the Constitution.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1433, the District of 
Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2007, and thank the chairman of the 
Judiciary Committee for his leadership in shepherding this important 
piece of legislation to the floor. Today we remove a stain that has 
blighted our Nation for more than 200 years of shame and correct an 
injustice to the citizens of the District of Columbia.
  H.R. 1433 would permanently expand the U.S. House of Representatives 
from 435 to 437 seats, providing a new, at-large seat to Utah and a 
vote to the District of Columbia. Based on the 2000 Census, Utah is the 
State next in line to enlarge its congressional delegation. The bill 
does not give the District statehood, nor does it give the District 
representation in the Senate. Rather, in H.R. 1433 Congress is simply 
treating the District as a congressional district for the purposes of 
granting full House representation, as it can pursuant to the grant of 
plenary power over the District of Columbia conferred by the 
Constitution in article I, section 8, clause 17.
  At the outset, let me address the claim that H.R. 1433 is a weak 
foundation upon which to base the District's voting rights in the House 
because it is a statutory rather a constitutionally based remedy. The 
argument should be rejected for the simple reason that it makes the 
perfect the enemy of the good. It is like asking a person to remain 
homeless while she

[[Page 7296]]

saves to buy a house even though she has enough money to rent an 
apartment.
  Madam Speaker, let us not lose sight of one indisputable and shameful 
fact: Nearly 500,000 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.
  Madam Speaker, if a person can be called upon to pay Federal taxes 
and serve in the Armed Forces of the United States, then he or she 
should at least have the opportunity to vote for a representative who 
could at least cast a symbolic vote in this Chamber on critical matters 
facing our Nation--issues like war and peace, equality and justice.
  Madam Speaker, taxation without representation is tyranny. It is 
unconscionable that more than a half million American citizens are 
being unconscionably denied a vote and a voice in the most important 
legislative body in the world.
  As a supporter of freedom, democracy, and equality, I believe that it 
is long overdue for the citizens of the District of Columbia to have a 
Representative in Congress who can vote on the vital legislation 
considered in this body.
  Madam Speaker, it is wrong that we must be reminded daily by license 
plates in the District of Columbia that ``Taxation without 
representation is tyranny.'' The people in Boston felt so strongly 
about this in 1775 that they rebelled in Boston Harbor, launching the 
``Boston Tea Party.''
  The principle that political authority derives from the consent of 
the government is no less applicable when it comes to the District of 
Columbia. Let us be clear. There is no dispute that hundreds of 
thousands of American citizens reside in the District of Columbia. We 
all agree that universal suffrage is the hallmark of a democratic 
regime, of which the United States is the world's leading exemplar.
  None of us believes it is fair that citizens of the District of 
Columbia pay Federal taxes, risk life and limb fighting wars abroad to 
protect American democracy and extend the blessings of liberty to 
people living in foreign lands. In short, there is no moral reason to 
deny the citizens of the District of Columbia the right to full 
representation in Congress. The only question is whether Congress has 
the will and the constitutional authority to do so. As I will discuss, 
Congress has always had the constitutional authority. For the last 12 
years, we have not had the will; but now we do.


  Congress Can Grant Voting Rights to the District Under the District 
                                 Clause

  As Professor Dinh argued in his powerful testimony before this 
Committee, Congress has ample constitutional authority to enact H.R. 
1433 under the Constitution's ``District Clause.'' Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 
17. The District Clause empowers Congress to ``exercise exclusive 
Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District'' and thus 
grants Congress plenary and exclusive authority to legislate all 
matters concerning the District. The text, history and structure of the 
Constitution, as well as judicial decisions and pronouncements in 
analogous or related contexts, confirms that this broad legislative 
authority extends to the granting of congressional voting rights for 
District residents.
  The District Clause, which has been described by no less a 
constitutional authority as Judge Kenneth Starr as ``majestic in its 
scope,'' gives Congress plenary and exclusive power to legislate for 
the District. Courts have held that the District Clause is ``sweeping 
and inclusive in character'' and gives Congress ``extraordinary and 
plenary power'' over the District. It empowers Congress to legislate 
within the District for ``every proper purpose of government.'' 
Congress therefore possesses ``full and unlimited jurisdiction 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,'' subject, of course, to the negative 
prohibitions of the Constitution.
  Although, the District is not a State for purposes of Congress's 
article I, section 2, clause 1, which states that Members of the House 
are chosen ``by the people of the several States,'' this fact is not 
dispositive of Congress's authority under the District Clause to give 
residents of the District the same rights as citizens of a State. Since 
1805, the Supreme Court has recognized that Congress has the authority 
to treat the District like a State, and Congress has repeatedly 
exercised this authority. No court has ever sustained a challenge to 
Congress's exercise of its power under the District Clause.
  Two related Supreme Court cases illustrate this point. In Hepburn v. 
Ellzey, 6 U.S. 445 (1805), the Court held that the diversity 
jurisdiction provision of article III, section 2 of the U.S. 
Constitution excluded citizens of the District of Columbia. The Court 
observed, however, that it was ``extraordinary'' that residents of the 
District should be denied the same access to Federal courts provided to 
aliens and State residents, and invited Congress to craft a solution, 
noting that the matter was ``a subject for legislative, not judicial 
consideration.''
  Congress accepted that invitation 145 years later and enacted 
legislation that explicitly granted District residents access to 
Federal courts on diversity grounds. That legislation was upheld by the 
Supreme Court in 1949 in National Mutual Insurance Company v. Tidewater 
Transfer Company, 337 U.S. 582 (1949). A plurality of the Court led by 
Justice Jackson held that Congress could for this purpose treat 
District residents as though they were State residents pursuant to its 
authority under the District Clause. The two concurring justices would 
have gone even further; they argued that Hepburn should be overruled 
and that the District should be considered a State for purposes of 
Article III.
  Tidewater strongly supports Congress's authority to provide the 
District a House Representative via simple legislation. As the 
plurality explained, because Congress unquestionably had the greater 
power to provide District residents diversity-based jurisdiction in 
special article I courts, it surely could accomplish the more limited 
result of granting District residents diversity-based access to 
existing article III courts. Similarly, Congress's authority to grant 
the District full rights of statehood--or grant its residents voting 
rights through retrocession--by simple legislation suggests that it 
may, by simple legislation, take the more modest step of providing 
citizens of the District with a voice in the House of Representatives. 
Indeed, since Congress has granted voting representation to residents 
of Federal enclaves in Evans v. Cornman, 398 U.S. 419 (1970), and to 
Americans living abroad through the Overseas Voting Act, there is no 
reason to suppose that Congress has less ability to provide voting 
representation to the residents of the Nation's capital.


II. Congress May Direct the Next-Entitled State to Elect Its Additional 
                        Representative at Large

  H.R. 1433 also grants an additional congressional seat to the State 
of Utah as the next-entitled State and directs that State to elect its 
additional Representative at large, rather than creating an additional 
single-Member district. Congress plainly has the authority to do so. 
This statutory scheme does not violate the ``one person, one vote'' 
principle.
  As the Supreme Court held in Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964), 
``the command of Article I, Section 2 [of the Constitution], that 
Representatives be chosen `by the People of the Several States' means 
that as nearly as is practicable one man's vote in a congressional 
election is to be worth as much as another's.'' In that case the Court 
struck down a Georgia apportionment statute because it created a 
congressional district that had two-to-three times as many residents as 
Georgia's nine other congressional districts. The Court stated:

       The apportionment statute thus contracts the value of some 
     votes and expands that of others. If the Federal Constitution 
     intends that when qualified voters elect members of Congress 
     each vote be given as much weight as any other vote, then 
     this statute cannot stand.

  ``One person, one vote'' concerns arise when congressional districts 
within a State contain different numbers of residents, diluting the 
voting power of residents in the district with more residents. In 
contrast, here the proposed temporary ``at large'' district in Utah 
does not dilute the voting power of any Utah voter.
  When Utah holds its at-large election for the new fourth seat, Utah 
voters may cast a vote in their existing district and in the statewide 
election for the fourth seat. While it is true that the statewide ``at 
large'' district will necessarily contain more residents than the other 
districts, the establishment of that ``at large'' district would create 
no constitutional dilution concerns. Each person's vote in the ``at 
large'' district would have equal influence, and the opportunity to 
cast that vote would not alter in any way the value of that person's 
vote in her own smaller district.
  Nor does a potential ``one person, one vote'' challenge arise on the 
ground that Utah residents vote in two elections while residents of 
other States with single-member districts would vote only once. First, 
the Supreme Court has never held that the ``one person, one vote'' 
principle applies to the apportionment process. Indeed, the Court has 
held that Congress is entitled to substantial deference in its 
apportionment decisions. Second, the

[[Page 7297]]

proposed at-large election does not give residents of the State more or 
less voting power than the residents of States with single-Member 
districts. The example cited by Richard Bress, one of the witnesses who 
testified before the Judiciary Committee in support of the bill, 
illustrates why this is so.
  Suppose that State A and State B have roughly the same population and 
are each entitled to four Representatives. State A holds an at-large 
election for all four of its Representatives, while State B divides its 
Representatives and voters into four districts. State A's statewide 
district would have a population four times the size of each district 
in State B. As compared to the single-district voter in State B, the 
``at-large'' voter in State A has a one-fourth interest in each of four 
Representatives. The single-district voter in State B has a whole 
interest in one Representative. But in both scenarios, each voter has, 
in the aggregate, one whole voting interest.
  Similarly, as compared to a State with four single-Member districts, 
the voters in Utah's existing three districts would have 
proportionately less influence in the election of the Representative 
from their own district, but would gain a fractional interest in the 
State's at-large Representative. In short, Utah residents would have no 
more--and no less--voting power than residents of any other State.


                            III. Conclusion

  For these reasons, I believe H.R. 1433 is constitutionally 
unassailable. Granting voting rights to the citizens of the District of 
Columbia is a matter of simple justice. I know it is morally right. It 
is also long overdue. Let us end this injustice and be true to the 
better angels of our nature. I urge all Members to join me in voting 
for H.R. 1433.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Gohmert), a member of the Judiciary Committee and the 
deputy and ranking member of the Crime Subcommittee.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Madam Speaker, it is important to look at the words of 
the Constitution themselves. It says very clearly, and this is Article 
I, section 2. This is what talks about who will comprise the House of 
Representatives, who will comprise the Congress. It says ``it shall be 
composed of members that come from the several States.'' It is very 
clear.
  Now, all of the people that testified before the Judiciary Committee 
who were supporting this amendment through legislation said, well, they 
base that on section 8, which says we can exercise exclusive 
legislation over the District. But once you open that door you have 
opened Pandora's box, because that same clause, that same paragraph 
says, exercise like authority over all places, that should include 
things like places where we have forts, magazines, arsenals, dark yards 
and other needful buildings. Once you go there, then every military 
institution in America could have a representative. Every needful 
Federal building in America could have a representative. That is what 
happens when you start bending and twisting the Constitution.
  Now, these arguments were had when the Constitution was written. 
Alexander Hamilton lost. And there is a good position that people 
should be able to elect their representative, and that was discussed. 
But I would submit to you that Washington, D.C. is also the only city 
in the entire country that every Senator and every Member of Congress 
has a vested interest in seeing that it works properly, that water 
works, sewer works, and no other city in America has that.
  In conclusion, let me just say, south of Columbus, Georgia, used to 
be an old blacksmith iron work shop with a sign above the door that 
said ``All types of bending and twisting done here.'' And I would 
humbly submit the Constitution should not have the same sign on the 
front of it. The Constitution is clear. Let's don't bend and twist it.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute because the 
speaker from Texas, Mr. Gohmert, a valuable member of Judiciary, a 
highly praised judge, and a supporter of gun rights too, incidentally 
ignores a decision that just came out of the federal court, just 
recently, within weeks, Parker v. Williams, which held that the second 
amendment renders the District's gun ban unconstitutional--which I was 
sorry to hear, but he probably wasn't--in that ``a well regulated 
militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of 
the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.''
  The court held that D.C. was a State for purposes of the 
Constitution's second amendment.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the rest of my time.
  The gentlelady from Los Angeles, California, has come upon the floor. 
I know she wants to speak on this, and I recognize Maxine Waters from 
California for 3 minutes on this subject.
  Ms. WATERS. Thank you so very much, Madam Speaker, and Chairman John 
Conyers.
  A lot of people want to know what difference does it make that 
Democrats are now in the majority. This is a fine example. Chairman 
Conyers and others have been working on this issue for so very long.
  And I rise in support of H.R. 1433, the District of Columbia House 
Voting Rights Act of 2007, of which I am a proud cosponsor.
  In a country where basic human and civil rights were only 
incrementally given to similarly situated citizens throughout its 
history, I applaud my colleagues for their courage and integrity to 
consider this measure and support its passage after 200 years of 
injustice.
  I thank the gentlelady from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton) and 
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) for their leadership and 
tenacity. Ms. Norton has consistently fought for the 16 years since she 
was first elected to Congress as my classmate in the 102nd Congress.
  Just like securing the right to vote, or securing civil rights, for 
that matter, for African Americans, women and other minorities was a 
long fight with slow rewards, seeking the franchisement of D.C. 
citizens has been equally as difficult.
  Just as it was shameful and unconscionable for African Americans and 
women to not have a vote until the passage of the 19th amendment, and 
of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, it is unconscionable for tax-paying 
citizens in America not to have a vote in Congress in the 21st century.
  It is even more ironic that D.C. citizens have no vote in Congress 
when it operates right in their back yard. To discriminate against tax-
paying citizens for over 200 years is an embarrassment to our democracy 
and undermines fundamental constitutional principles.
  Nowhere in the United States Constitution is the word ``State'' 
defined, but some of our colleagues now wish to gerrymander a 
definition that would somehow distinguish citizens of D.C. from 
citizens of every other voting State.
  Furthermore, not only does the guaranty clause, which reads that 
``the United States shall guarantee a republican form of government,'' 
but the fifth amendment equal protection clause, which insures that all 
persons of the United States enjoy equal protection of the laws, make 
it clear that D.C. citizens should receive voting representation.
  Article IV, section 4 of the Constitution guarantees us a republican 
form of government. And the Supreme Court has defined a republican form 
of government as one constructed on the principle that the superior 
power resides in the body of the people. Are D.C. citizens not a part 
of the people?
  Mr. Chairman, in this new Congress we hope to rid America of all 
traces of disenfranchisement, of impediments to voting. And giving D.C. 
residents a vote in the Congress is a major part of this goal.
  I thank you, Congressman John Conyers, for your leadership.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend 
from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), a senior member of the Judiciary 
Committee.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 1433, the 
District of Columbia Voting Rights Act.
  There is no doubt that citizens of the District of Columbia do not 
have a full voting representation in the House of Representatives. 
However, there are ways that these individuals can receive 
representation without trampling on the Constitution. Unfortunately, 
this bill is not one of them.
  The Constitution does not mince words when it says that Members of

[[Page 7298]]

Congress may only be elected from the States. Article I, section 2 
states that the House of Representatives shall be composed of Members 
chosen every second year by the people of the several States.
  The Constitution also does not mince words when it distinguishes the 
District of Columbia from a State. In describing the powers of the 
Congress, Article I, section 8 describes the seat of Federal Government 
as a district, not exceeding 10 miles square, as made by cessation of 
particular States and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of 
government of the United States.
  Furthermore, the text of the 23rd amendment to the Constitution 
further illustrates that the District was never meant to have the same 
rights as States. Specifically, it grants D.C. the power to appoint a 
number of electors, a President and Vice President, equal to the whole 
number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the 
district would be entitled if it were a State.
  The plain language of the Constitution is clear, that D.C. is not a 
State and that it is not granted the same rights as States. However, 
the constitutional problems with this bill do not end here. The bill 
would also establish an at-large representative for Utah, which would 
allow the citizens of Utah to vote twice, once for their local 
representative and another time for an at-large representative. This 
would clearly violate the constitutional principle of one man-one vote 
by granting Utah citizens disproportionately large voting power.
  Finally, the procedure for bringing this bill to the floor is 
appalling. Debate has been eliminated on a bill that affects the 
relative voting power of citizens in each of our congressional 
districts. Ranking Member Smith offered an amendment which would have 
provided for an expedited judicial review.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this legislation which is 
clearly unconstitutional.
  I rise in opposition to H.R. 1433, the District of Columbia house 
voting rights act.
  There is no doubt that citizens of D.C. do not have a full voting 
representative in the house of Representatives. However, there are ways 
that these individuals can receive representation without trampling on 
the Constitution. Unfortunately, this bill is not one of them.
  The Constitution does not mince words when it says that members of 
Congress may only be elected from the states. Article I Section 2 
states that ``The House of Representatives shall be composed of members 
chosen every second year by the people of the several States.'' The 
Constitution also does not mince words when it distinguishes the 
District of Columbia from a State. In describing the powers of the 
Congress, Article I Section 8 describes the seat of Federal Government 
as a ``District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cessation 
of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat 
of government of the United States.''
  Furthermore, the text of the 23rd amendment to the Constitution 
further illustrates that the district was never meant to have the same 
rights as States. Specifically, it grants D.C. the power to appoint ``a 
number of electors of President and Vice President equal to the whole 
number of Senators and Representatives in Congress to which the 
District would be entitled if it were a State . . .''
  The plain language of the Constitution is clear that D.C. is not a 
State and that it is not granted the same rights as States. However, 
the Constitutional problems with this bill do not end here. The bill 
would also establish an at-large representative for Utah, which would 
allow the citizens of Utah to vote twice--once for their local 
representative and another time for an at-large representative. This 
would clearly violate the Constitutional principle of ``one man, one 
vote'' by granting Utah citizens disproportionately large voting power.
  Finally, the procedure for bringing this bill to the floor is 
appalling. Debate has been eliminated on a bill that affects the 
relative voting power of citizens in each of our congressional 
districts. Ranking member Smith offered an amendment which would have 
provided for an expedited judicial review of the bill after it is 
enacted, to determine its constitutionality. It is revealing that the 
majority decided to block that amendment which would have settled the 
Constitutional concerns about this legislation.
  For all these reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose this ill-
crafted legislation.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I reserve my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Issa), a member of the Judiciary Committee and 
also a member of its Constitution Subcommittee.
  Mr. ISSA. Madam Speaker, it is an unusual day in which the cosponsor 
of a bill, not in just this Congress but in the previous Congress, 
comes to oppose the final passage. It is not that I object to the 
people of the District of Columbia gaining a vote in this body, just 
the opposite. For two Congresses I have worked with Chairman Davis, now 
Ranking Member Davis, to achieve that.
  It is that, for whatever reason, in this Democratically controlled 
Congress, we have lost democracy. In the regular order of the two 
committees, amendments were offered, some were passed, some failed. One 
that was passed was one of mine. It intended to make clear the Maryland 
relationship to the District of Columbia. It was a fairly small 
technical amendment. The Democrat majority, led by Speaker Pelosi, 
chose to strip that out of what was brought to the floor, to my 
amazement, but not amusement. And then when I offered the same 
amendment to the Rules Committee, they voted not to allow it. So that 
which was voted in the committee of jurisdiction was stripped out by 
the leadership and then refused to be considered in the body of the 
whole. That is without any democratic fairness.
  I am not here to complain about process. I believed it was an 
essential piece of language when this legislation was considered. So 
without it, I feel I am compelled not only to vote against it, but to 
seek alternate remedies for future legislation.
  We cannot, in this body, Madam Speaker, allow the Speaker of the 
House or the House majority leader to simply eliminate the tradition of 
how we do business in order to reach democratically produced 
legislation. So I will be voting against this bill, and it will be a 
vote against the kind of heavy-handedness that led to this bill being 
less than it could have been.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, we continue to reserve time.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Jordan), a valued member of the Judiciary 
Committee.
  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Madam Speaker, the United States of America is 
the greatest Nation in human history. And that is due to a number of 
reasons, number of facts, number of truths that make that so. But 
certainly, one of those is the document we call the United States 
Constitution. And on giving the District of Columbia a voting Member in 
Congress, the United States Constitution could not be more clear. And 
let me just read what other Members have read: ``Article I, section 2, 
the House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every 
second year by the people of the several States. No person shall be a 
Representative who shall not have attained to the age of 25 years and 
have been 7 years a citizen of the United States and who shall not, 
when elected, be an inhabitant of that State in which he shall be 
chosen. Further, when vacancies happen in the representation from any 
State, the executive authority thereof shall issue writs of election to 
fill such vacancies.''
  State, State, State. Three different times the word State is used. 
The District of Columbia is not a State. I can't help that inconvenient 
fact, as someone has said earlier. But those are the facts. You don't 
have to be a lawyer. You don't have to be a judge. You don't have to 
sit on the Supreme Court to understand what the Constitution says.
  This bill is unconstitutional, and that is why I oppose it.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Iowa (Mr. King), another valued member of the Judiciary Committee, 
and also the ranking member of one of its subcommittees.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and ranking 
member, Mr. Smith, for yielding and for his leadership on this issue.
  I come to the floor here to stand up for this Constitution. That is 
my oath

[[Page 7299]]

as it is all of our oaths here. We all stand here on the floor of 
Congress and take an oath to this Constitution, Madam Speaker. And the 
language in this Constitution has been many times stated. It is utterly 
clear. But I want to draw a distinction here that has not been 
emphasized very much and that is that if you can rationalize that the 
District of Columbia can constitutionally be conferred a Member by this 
Congress, then you also have to rationalize that same rationale that 
two Senators can be conferred upon the District of Columbia as well.

                              {time}  1315

  And I point your attention to, Madam Speaker, Article I, section 2 
and the operative language: ``The House of Representatives shall be 
composed of Members chosen every second year by,'' and this is the 
distinct language, ``by the people of the several States.''
  In Article I, section 3, when you incorporate the 17th amendment into 
it, reads: ``The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two 
Senators from each State,'' just like a Member chosen by the State, but 
elected by the people thereof; elected by the people thereof in section 
3; chosen by the people of the several States in section 2. They each 
reference ``States.'' There is not a distinction. If you can 
constitutionally confer a Member of Congress, you can do the same thing 
for Senators.
  And I would point out also that a couple of bright legal minds that 
have weighed in on this, Ken Starr and Viet Dinh, people whom I do 
respect, also I believe they made an argument that is taught in law 
school: How do you analyze both sides of the argument so you can make 
both sides or defend either side?
  And I think it is just an utterly weak argument that they made. And 
the simple principle was that between 1791 and 1801, that 10-year 
period of time, Virginia and Maryland, those residents that existed and 
lived in this District that was contemplated by the Framers of the 
Constitution were granted temporarily the right to vote in their 
respective States until such time as this Federal jurisdiction was 
established.
  Just because there is consensus agreement among the House, the 
Senate, and the President does not constitute a constitutional 
principle.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, as chairman of the 
Congressional Constitution Caucus and as a Representative of the State 
of New Jersey, I come to the floor to strongly oppose this 
unconstitutional taking away, diminution, and reducing of voting rights 
for citizens of my district in the State of New Jersey.
  The sponsors of the bill do this in order to accommodate the equally 
unconstitutional creation of voting rights in an area of this country 
that is not a State. And it has been pointed out already that there is 
a legal and constitutional manner to enfranchise these people of the 
District of Columbia.
  But in section 4.5 of the bill, the sponsor gives some citizens of 
another State, Utah, two votes in Congress for every one vote for my 
citizens in the State of New Jersey.
  The Founding Fathers of this Nation never intended that one State 
would be more equal than another State. The Founding Fathers of this 
country never intended that Congress could strip away rights to vote 
from my State to give it to another. The Founding Fathers never 
intended that Congress would create a situation that one State would be 
second class to another State.
  I urge my colleagues from New Jersey to vote against this bill.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my colleague 
from Texas (Mr. Poe).
  Mr. POE. Madam Speaker, I am glad that we are finally discussing the 
U.S. Constitution. So much legislation goes through this House from 
both sides where the Constitution is never mentioned as to whether it 
is constitutional or not.
  No question about it: the folks in Washington, D.C. ought to be 
represented in the House. But the Constitution does not allow it except 
by constitutional amendment. And history is on the side of what I say.
  The 23rd amendment to the Constitution that was approved in 1961 
gives the District of Columbia and the people here representation or 
voting in the Presidential election by giving them three electors. It 
took a constitutional amendment to give them that right. The arguments 
were made then that are being made now. D.C. was not a State in 1961 
any more than it is a State today.
  So let us proceed. Let us proceed with a constitutional amendment if 
need be and give the folks in Washington, D.C. a representation in this 
House of Representatives. But do it the right way. Do it the 
constitutional way, not by just some legislation of Congress.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Regula), a senior Member of this body.
  Mr. REGULA. Madam Speaker, I have a little bit different approach to 
this. I have been introducing a bill in several sessions which would 
provide for retrocession of the city of Washington, D.C. minus the 
Federal portion to the State of Maryland. This would give the people 
who reside in Washington, D.C. a chance to vote on Senators. It would 
give them a chance to vote on legislators. It would give the people who 
live here a chance to participate in the university system, the highway 
system, economic development. A lot of things would accrue to the 
benefit of the people if we would have retrocession of the city minus 
the Federal portion.
  There is precedent for this in the fact that originally we had a 
portion of it retrocede to Virginia, and I think retroceding the 
balance to Maryland would make a lot of sense for the people. It would 
give them what they are seeking, which would be a vote not just for 
Congress but for Senators, for the legislators, and it would be a way 
in which they could more effectively participate.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation. I want to be 
clear, however, that I have long been an advocate of voting rights for 
the residents of the District of Columbia. Beginning with my service on 
the DC Appropriations Subcommittee in 1987, I have been keenly aware of 
this unfair situation within our democracy. Virtually every Congress 
since then I have introduced legislation that would give the District 
of Columbia residents representation in Congress. Voting is a privilege 
that our founding fathers intended every American to have, and giving 
this right to DC residents is a matter of doing what is right. Yet 200 
years have passed since DC residents lost their voting rights and they 
continue to express dissatisfaction over their lack of voting 
representation in Congress.
  Because of this frustrating situation and the numerous failed 
attempts to grant DC either statehood or a voting representative, I 
have advocated for a simple, sound and proven process to give DC 
residents voting rights. This process is known as retrocession or 
reunion. Through this process, the District, barring a small Federal 
enclave, would be returned to the State of Maryland, which originally 
ceded the land in 1790.
  Retrocession would be beneficial for both the District and Maryland. 
The voting rights issue would be resolved, as DC residents would gain 
not only a voting representative in the House of Representatives but 
also two in the United States Senate. The residents also would gain new 
representation on the State level and enjoy access to Maryland's State 
infrastructure, facilities and assistance programs. On a very local 
level, Washington, as a city in a state, would regain the local 
decision-making authority it has been seeking for so long.
  Conversely, by gaining the District's nearly 600,000 residents, 
Maryland would gain a seat in the House and extend its influence in 
Congress. With the Nation's 2nd highest per capita income, District 
residents would enhance Maryland's tax base and help create the 4th 
largest regional market in the country.
  Canada offers a prime example of how this proposal could work. Its 
capital, Ottawa, lies in the province of Ontario and sends 
representatives to the provincial parliament in Toronto as well as the 
federal parliament as part of the Ontario delegation. Also, in 1790, 
Alexandria, Virginia was in a similar position to DC. Alexandria was 
included in the area chosen by

[[Page 7300]]

George Washington to become the District of Columbia. A portion of the 
City of Alexandria and all of today's Arlington County share the 
distinction of having been originally in Virginia, ceded to the U.S. 
Government to form the District of Columbia, and later retroceded to 
Virginia by the Federal Government in 1846, when the District was 
reduced in size to exclude the portion south of the Potomac River.
  I believe this framework is the most logical and constitutionally 
sound way to give DC residents the voting rights they deserve. 
Additionally, as I mentioned previously, the precedent already exists. 
Let's pursue a realistic solution to restore the rights of District 
residents and provide them with a better future.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Feeney), a former Speaker of the House in Florida.
  Mr. FEENEY. Madam Speaker, I find almost a surreal debate going on 
with my friends on the left side of the House saying to us don't you 
like democracy. We have got soldiers fighting for democracy throughout 
the world, while we are saying to our friends on the left, don't you 
like the Constitution?
  The question is are we a pure democracy or a constitutional republic? 
The Constitution is made up of powers delegated by the States, and the 
States alone, to the Federal Government. The States and the States 
alone, according to the language of the Constitution, are represented 
in the U.S. House.
  If you believe in democracy, use the constitutional amendment 
process, use the retrocession process. If you have a quarrel with the 
Constitution, it is not because you don't like the position of the 
Republicans and the minority in this House. It is because your quarrel 
is with the Founding Fathers.
  Hamilton tried to get this provision in the Constitution, 
representation for D.C. The Founding Fathers considered it and they 
rejected it.
  So, again, we are for democracy within a constitutional republic 
status. We are not an unadulterated democracy. We are a constitutional 
republic.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Nevada (Mr. Heller).
  Mr. HELLER of Nevada. Madam Speaker, I thank the ranking member for 
yielding.
  I rise in opposition to this legislation. The matter is a question of 
basic fairness, but also serious constitutional concern.
  As a former Secretary of State for the State of Nevada, I have spent 
years trying to figure out ways to promote voting, and I support the 
voting rights of all Americans. I additionally understand the concerns 
of Utah for its population that lives abroad outside its borders and 
their desire for an extra seat.
  But I will tell you until this year, Nevada has had a 20-year grip as 
the fastest-growing State in the Nation, and Nevada's population is 
about even to Utah's, but Nevada is growing significantly faster than 
our neighbor.
  I understand the concerns of my Utah colleagues following the 2000 
census; but to give Utah an extra seat at the expense of Nevada would, 
arguably, slight Nevada.
  I know the intent is good, but the means by which we achieve them are 
just as important, and I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I am proud to yield 1 minute to the most 
patient Member in the House of Representatives, the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Al Green).
  Mr. AL GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman for 
yielding.
  I want to make it conspicuously clear that I love the Constitution. 
And I understand that there are constitutional scholars on both sides 
of this issue.
  There were constitutional scholars on both sides of Dred Scott. There 
were constitutional scholars on both sides of Plessy vs. Ferguson. 
There were constitutional scholars on both sides of Brown vs. The Board 
of Education.
  The question is which side are you on? Which side are you on today?
  I stand with the half million people, more than a half million 
people, in the District of Columbia who do not have full representation 
in the United States Congress. Which side are we on today?
  I stand with ending 206 years of injustice on people who are citizens 
of the United States who live in the District of Columbia. I stand on 
the side of ending taxation without representation. I stand with the 
chairman and I want to especially say that I stand with the majority 
leader, who stood here and made me proud of him today. Just when I 
think that the stock of the chairman of this committee and the majority 
leader can't go any higher, it goes up.
  I stand for government of the people, by the people, and for the 
people.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I have no further requests for 
time, and I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I am proud to yield 1 full minute to Rush 
Holt of New Jersey.
  Mr. HOLT. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, the constitutional history of the United States has 
been the expansion of the voting franchise. Our history has been to 
expand the rights and responsibilities of citizenship.
  With respect to the District of Columbia, the Constitution provides 
that the Congress shall have the power to exercise exclusive 
legislation. It does not say that the price is the loss of the 
franchise.
  As a youngster who lived here in the District of Columbia, I was told 
by some that residents of D.C. were special. My colleague from Texas 
used the word ``distinctive'' awhile ago, that somehow we were honored 
to have Congress govern us even though we did not have representation.
  What a strange honor. It is truly paradoxical and ironic that 
residents of the seat of government of the greatest democracy in the 
world should not themselves have the right of direct representation, 
600,000 citizens, citizens without the complete basic rights of 
citizens. Giving D.C.'s 600,000 residents direct representation of 
Congress is long overdue.
  I rise today in support of the District of Columbia House Voting 
Rights Act of 2007, and I would like to commend my colleagues Eleanor 
Holmes Norton and Tom Davis for their tireless efforts to bring this 
important measure to the Floor for a vote.
  The United States Constitution, a relatively short and simple 
document, has utterly transformed the world in its 200 year history. It 
has served as a model for fledgling democracies everywhere, because of 
its establishment of a system under which the citizenry grant limited 
powers to the government and choose the individuals who will represent 
them in that government. The Constitutional history of the United 
States has been the expansion of the voting franchise. Our history has 
been to expand the rights and responsibilities of citizenship.
  As for the District of Columbia, however, the Constitution provides 
that Congress shall have the power ``to exercise exclusive legislation 
over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may . . . become 
the seat of government of the United States.'' It does not say that the 
price is disenfranchisement.
  The importance of creating a neutral jurisdiction for the seat of the 
federal government under the exclusive control of Congress made sense 
at the time. As a youngster who lived in the District of Columbia many 
decades ago, I was told by some that residents of DC were special, 
distinctive as the gentleman, Mr. Smith, that we were honored to have 
Congress govern us even though Congress worked without representation 
from us. What a strange honor! It is truly paradoxical that the 
residents of the seat of government of the greatest democracy in the 
world should not, themselves, have the rights to direct representation. 
The District of Columbia was created in 1790 and, in 1800, it had a 
population of just over 8,000. Today, it is home to about 600,000 
citizens--citizens without the complete basic rights of citizens.
  If enacted, H.R. 1433 would treat the District of Columbia like a 
congressional district for the purposes of allowing direct 
representation within the House of Representatives. This measure was 
reported out favorably by the House Committee on the Judiciary 
Committee by a margin of almost two to one, and subsequently by the 
House Committee on Oversight and Government by a margin of 25 to four. 
[Giving Washington D.C.'s 600,000 residents direct representation in 
Congress is long overdue;] I fully support this measure and I urge my 
colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from

[[Page 7301]]

Ohio, Dennis Kucinich, a distinguished Member of this body.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker, I thank the chairman for yielding.
  D.C. residents shoulder the burden of a colossal injustice. They live 
within a system of governance that extracts the full range of taxes 
paid by all other U.S. citizens without the benefit of voting 
representation in the United States Congress.
  The history of D.C. is the history of democracy denied. Its citizens 
have given the full measure of their allegiance to the United States. 
They fought in wars for the United States. They have paid taxes. They 
have provided labor, resources, and space to the United States 
Government. Yet for 200 years District residents have been bystanders 
in the governance of their Nation and city.
  ``Taxation without representation'' is not just a good slogan. It is 
a plight that sparked revolution. We attempt to create democracies 
around the globe, but to deny democracy in the shadow of the U.S. 
capital, it is now time to end that.
  Voting rights, civil rights, human rights are all one. Support this 
resolution.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 1 minute to my 
good friend from Virginia, James Moran.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to the 
arguments against this bill, and no one has made the argument that this 
is not the right thing to do. The opposition is hiding behind the 
language of the Constitution. I say ``hide'' because there are any 
number of interpretations and any number of conservative constitutional 
scholars who have said this is fully constitutional.
  But it is the right thing to do because there is no jurisdiction, no 
State, no local government that has had more legislation passed in this 
body affecting them than the onerous provisions directly affecting the 
citizens of the District of Columbia and uniquely affecting them.
  Forty-four thousand veterans are in the District of Columbia. Every 
D.C. resident pays Federal taxes.

                                   1330

  They are solid American citizens and there are more of them than in 
the entire state of Wyoming. They deserve voting representation.
  Let me say one further thing. I represent the area in Alexandria that 
used to be part of the District of Columbia. When that area retroceded 
back to Virginia, on the front page of the Alexandria Gazette they 
described the freed men and freed women on their knees begging for 
citizens of Alexandria not to do this--not to deprive every black 
person of all their rights. But the entitled white people of Northern 
Virginia voted to deny them their rights because of racism. The history 
of this disenfranchisement of D.C. residents is not a pretty one. It 
needs to be undone.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I am proud to yield 1 minute to my friend 
the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support for 
voting rights for residents of the District of Columbia.
  I would note, Madam Speaker, that this month is Women's History 
Month, and it took women many, many long years to gain the right to 
vote. It took a constitutional amendment in 1920 to give women the 
right to vote. But today we can vote to give the vote to the residents 
of the District of Columbia.
  I would note that it was not until 1965 that the landmark Voting 
Rights Act was signed into law to outlaw discriminatory practices like 
literacy tests and to ensure that all Americans, regardless of race, 
had access to the ballot. Today we have the opportunity to take another 
historic step in the right direction by ending the disenfranchisement 
of hundreds of thousands of tax-paying Americans.
  The people of the District of Columbia contribute to our national 
economy, they fight in our wars, and it is simply wrong that they not 
have representation.
  I rise in strong support of voting rights for these residents.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 1433, the 
``District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act,'' introduced by my good 
friend and colleague, Representative Eleanor Holmes Norton.
  She has been a steadfast champion for her constituents on many 
issues, and has worked tirelessly to bring this legislation to the 
floor today.
  I want to commend her for her commitment to the residents of the 
District of Columbia, who for too long have been denied a voice in the 
House of Representatives.
  We have seen through our own history the great struggles that have 
been endured to win the right to vote.
  For women, it took a constitutional amendment in 1920 to give us the 
right the vote.
  It was not until 1965 that the landmark ``Voting Rights Act'' was 
signed into law to outlaw discriminatory practices like literacy tests 
and to ensure that all Americans, regardless of race, had access to the 
ballot box.
  Today, we are taking another step in the right direction by ending 
the disenfranchisement of hundreds of thousands of tax-paying 
Americans.
  It is undemocratic that we can determine the taxes that District 
residents pay to the Federal Government, but they have not been able to 
elect a representative who has a say in what those taxes will be.
  The people of the District of Columbia contribute to our national 
economy and they fight in wars.
  It is simply wrong that their representative in the House does not 
have full voting rights.
  The House of Representatives is known as ``the people's house'' yet 
for the people living in the District of Columbia, their voices have 
been silenced for far too long.
  It is sadly ironic that the citizens living in the Nation's Capital 
do not have full representation in the House.
  With this legislation, we will change history.
  I urge my colleagues to support his legislation.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Madam Speaker, let me summarize the reasons we should oppose this 
legislation. D.C. is not a State, and the Constitution clearly limits 
representation in the House to States.
  Supporters of this bill claim Congress has the authority to enact 
this bill under a broad reading of the so-called ``District clause'' in 
Article I, section 8 of the Constitution. However, Article I, section 2 
clearly says, ``The House of Representatives shall be composed of 
Members chosen every second year by the people of the several States.''
  The bill unfairly subjects many citizens to unequal treatment as 
well. H.R. 1433 grants Utah an additional Representative who will run 
statewide or at large. The at-large provision violates the principles 
of one man, one vote. Voters in Utah would be able to vote for two 
Representatives, their district Representative and their at-large 
Representative, whereas voters in every other State would only be able 
to vote for their one district Representative. The result would be that 
Utah voters will have disproportionately more voting power than the 
voters of every other State, and that, too, is clearly 
unconstitutional.
  In 2000, the Federal District Court in D.C. itself stated, ``We 
conclude from our analysis of the text that the Constitution does not 
contemplate that the District may serve as a State for purposes of the 
apportionment of congressional representatives.''
  Furthermore, Madam Speaker, this unconstitutional approach is 
completely unnecessary. Most of the District of Columbia, other than a 
few Federal buildings, could simply be returned to the State of 
Maryland. That process of retrocession is clearly allowed by the 
Constitution. That process could grant representation in the House to 
those in Washington by a simple majority vote. D.C. voters could then 
be represented by both House and Senate Members, an improvement over 
the current legislation.
  Madam Speaker, finally, and for many good reasons, the administration 
also opposes this legislation.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Watson) for the purpose of a unanimous-consent request.
  Ms. WATSON. Madam Speaker, I just want to say that this is long 
overdue.

[[Page 7302]]

  Madam Speaker, I am elated that this bill is finally reaching the 
House floor for a vote--that we might finally be granting a voice in 
Congress to half a million patriotic taxpaying Americans. I know that 
my colleague, Eleanor Holmes Norton, is elated as well.
  Democracy for District residents is long overdue. There are over 
500,000 residents living in DC and they pay some of the highest income 
taxes in the Nation, but they do not have full representation in 
Congress. This is unacceptable. DC residents should have the voice and 
voting rights that the other 50 States in this country share.
  Voting is fundamental to the Democratic process. It is the one act 
that allows the widest participation of the American public in our 
political process. Every voter who goes to the polls should be assured 
that his or her vote will be counted and the candidates they put in 
office will be able to have the voting power to voice their needs in 
this House.
  Madam Speaker, I am hopeful that when this bill passes, I will soon 
be able to call my colleague from the District of Columbia 
Congresswoman Holmes Norton and she will be joining me on the floor to 
vote and represent the people of Washington, DC to the fullest.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished 
former member of the Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from Maryland 
(Mr. Van Hollen).
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank the chairman.
  Madam Speaker, this bill is about justice, it is about fairness and 
about democracy. What a terrible message we send when the people in the 
capital of the world's greatest democracy do not have a vote in the 
people's House.
  I have the privilege of representing the district right next to 
Washington, D.C., and it is simply wrong that when you cross the border 
from Washington, D.C., into my district, you go from a district where 
you have no voting representation in Congress to one where you do.
  We need to make sure that all the people in this country share the 
right to a vote in the people's House. I urge adoption of this bill.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the Speaker of the House.
  Ms. PELOSI. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and his 
leadership in bringing this very important legislation to the floor.
  This is a happy day indeed. It is an historic day. It is a day when 
the people of the District of Columbia will finally have their voices 
heard and represented.
  This is a personal joy for me as well, because when I was born all 
those many years ago, my father served in the Congress, and he became 
the Chair of the District of Columbia Appropriations Subcommittee. As 
such, that was a time when there was no Mayor, no home rule, no 
anything; that committee practically ran the District of Columbia. My 
father was a strong advocate for home rule for the District, and, of 
course, we had hoped eventually, and still do, statehood.
  It took a long time, but at last today we will get a vote once again 
for Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton. She has really been a champion 
for the District. Even without the full vote, her impact is felt here, 
but it is the right thing to do for her to have the vote.
  Congressman Davis, as Chairman Davis and now as ranking member, has 
always been a strong advocate for this, as has Henry Waxman, the Chair 
of the Government Reform Committee, and you, Mr. Chairman, from the 
standpoint of the Judiciary Committee.
  How impressive it was to see the Iraqi vets, these young people, 
coming back from the Iraq war, and those serving in Afghanistan, where 
they were willing to make any sacrifice for our country. Their courage 
and patriotism is honored by all of us. They came and pled to us for 
the District of Columbia to have the vote. They live here, they went to 
war from here, they wanted to come home to the fullness of democracy 
for the District of Columbia.
  Today's vote affirms an enduring principle of our democracy, the 
right to be heard and represented. They fought for that in Iraq. They 
should have it here in the District.
  For more than 200 years, the people of the District of Columbia have 
been denied full representation. This carefully crafted, bipartisan 
legislation corrects a serious flaw in our democracy. America is at its 
best honoring the cause of freedom and justice when all voices are 
fully represented.
  The effort to politicize the issue of fundamental fairness 
disrespects the ideals of this Nation and the people of the District of 
Columbia. We must honor our democracy. House Democrats will not rest 
until full representation in the House is granted to the District of 
Columbia.
  This is an important day on which I congratulate Congresswoman 
Eleanor Holmes Norton and the people of the District of Columbia for 
having this right come due.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Madam Speaker, I will insert in the Record under yesterday's date, 
March 21, a CRS report handed to me by Eleanor Holmes Norton that 
validates the fact that the one man, one vote principle is not violated 
by the Utah creation of an at-large district.
  Madam Speaker, we have had a lot of predictions from Members of the 
Congress who may be on the Supreme Court someday. They predicted 
unconstitutionality and constitutionality. Let's leave it up to the 
Court. But, remember, those challenging on the basis of 
unconstitutionality have the burden.
  I close with this observation: The three recommendations we have had, 
a constitutional amendment; retrocession, giving D.C. back to Maryland; 
or statehood, are not going to work.
  I urge support for this measure before us today.

       CRS Report for Congress: Congressional Redistricting: The 
           Constitutionality of Creating an At-Large District

               (L. Paige Whitaker, Legislative Attorney)


                                Summary

       Among other provisions, H.R. 1433 (110th Cong.), the 
     District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2007, would 
     expand the U.S. House of Representatives by two Members to a 
     total of 437 Members. The first of these two new seats would 
     be allocated to create a voting Member representing the 
     District of Columbia, and the second seat would be assigned 
     in accordance with 2000 census data and existing federal law, 
     resulting in the addition of a fourth congressional seat in 
     the state of Utah, which would be a temporary at-large 
     district. This report is limited to discussing only the 
     constitutionality of the creation of an at-large 
     congressional district. While it is not without doubt, based 
     on the authority granted to Congress under the Constitution 
     to regulate congressional elections and relevant Supreme 
     Court precedent, it appears that federal law establishing a 
     temporary at-large congressional district would likely be 
     upheld as constitutional.


 H.R. 1433 (110th Cong.), the District of Columbia House Voting Rights 
                              Act of 2007

       Among other provisions, H.R. 1433 (110th Cong.), the 
     District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2007, would 
     expand the U.S. House of Representatives by two Members to a 
     total of 437 Members. It specifies that the first of these 
     two new seats would be allocated to create a voting Member 
     representing the District of Columbia, and that the second 
     seat would be assigned in accordance with 2000 census data 
     and existing federal law, which would currently result in the 
     addition of a fourth congressional seat in the state of Utah. 
     This report is limited to considering only the issue of the 
     constitutionality of the creation of an at-large 
     congressional district.
       H.R. 1433 (110th Cong.) was introduced on March 9, 2007, 
     and supersedes H.R. 328, which was introduced earlier in the 
     110th Congress. On March 13, the House Government Oversight 
     and Reform Committee reported H.R. 1433, by a vote of 24-5, 
     and on March 15, the House Judiciary Committee reported the 
     bill by a vote of 21-13.


                     Brief Constitutional Analysis

       The U.S. Constitution provides the states with primary 
     authority over congressional elections, but grants Congress 
     the final authority over most aspects of such elections. This 
     congressional power is at its most broad in the case of House 
     elections, which have historically been decided by a system 
     of popular voting. Article I, Sec. 4, cl. 1 provides that:

       The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for 
     Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each 
     State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any 
     time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the 
     Places of chusing Senators.

     The Supreme Court and lower courts have interpreted this 
     language to mean that Congress has extensive power to 
     regulate most elements of congressional elections, including 
     a broad authority to protect the integrity of those 
     elections.
       The Constitution does not specify how Members of the House 
     are to be elected once

[[Page 7303]]

     they are apportioned to a state. Originally, most states 
     having more than one Representative divided their territory 
     into geographic districts, permitting only one Member of 
     Congress to be elected from each district. Other states, 
     however, allowed House candidates to run at-large or from 
     multi-member districts or from some combination of the two. 
     In those states employing single-member districts, however, 
     the problem of gerrymandering, the practice of drawing 
     district lines in order to maximize political party 
     advantage, quickly arose.
       Accordingly, Congress began establishing standards for 
     House districts. Congress first passed federal redistricting 
     standards in 1842, when it added a requirement to the 
     apportionment act of that year that Representatives ``should 
     be elected by districts composed of contiguous territory 
     equal in number to the number of Representatives to which 
     each said state shall be entitled, no one district electing 
     more than one Representative.'' (5 Stat. 491.) The 
     Apportionment Act of 1872 added another requirement to those 
     first set out in 1842, stating that districts should contain 
     ``as nearly as practicable an equal number of inhabitants.'' 
     (17 Stat. 492.) A further requirement of ``compact 
     territory'' was added when the Apportionment Act of 1901 was 
     adopted stating that districts must be made up of 
     ``contiguous and compact territory and containing as nearly 
     as practicable an equal number of inhabitants.'' (26 Stat. 
     736.) After 1929, there were no congressionally imposed 
     standards governing congressional redistricting; in 1941, 
     however, Congress enacted a law providing for various 
     redistricting contingencies if states failed to redistrict 
     after a census--including at-large representation. (55 Stat 
     761.) In 1967, Congress reimposed the requirement that 
     Representatives must run from single-member districts, rather 
     than running at-large. (81 Stat. 581.)
       Both the 1941 and 1967 laws are still in effect, codified 
     at 2 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 2a and 2c. In Branch v. Smith, the 
     Supreme Court considered the operation and inherent tension 
     between these two provisions. It does not appear, however, 
     that the question of congressional authority was in serious 
     dispute in this litigation. Rather, the Court noted in 
     passing that the current statutory scheme governing 
     apportionment of the House of Representatives was enacted in 
     1929 pursuant to congressional authority under the ``Times, 
     Places and Manner'' provision of the Constitution. 
     Consequently, it seems likely that Congress has broad 
     authority, within specified constitutional parameters, to 
     establish how Members' districts will be established, 
     including the creation of at-large districts.
       It might be suggested that creating an at-large 
     congressional district in a state could violate the ``one 
     person, one vote'' standard established by the Supreme Court 
     in Wesberry v. Sanders. In Wesberry, the Supreme Court first 
     applied the one person, one vote standard in the context of 
     evaluating the constitutionality of a Georgia congressional 
     redistricting statute that created a district with two to 
     three times as many residents as the state's other nine 
     districts. In striking down the statute, the Court held that 
     Article I, section 2, clause 1, providing that 
     Representatives be chosen ``by the People of the several 
     States'' and be ``apportioned among the several States . . . 
     according to their respective Numbers,'' requires that ``as 
     nearly as is practicable, one man's vote in a congressional 
     is to be worth as much as another's.''
       While it is not beyond dispute, it does not appear that the 
     creation of an at-large district under the circumstances 
     outlined in H.R. 1433 would be interpreted to create a 
     conflict with the ``one person, one vote'' standard. Under 
     H.R. 1433, each Utah voter would have the opportunity to vote 
     both for a candidate to represent his or her congressional 
     district as well as for a candidate to represent the state 
     at-large. Each person's vote for an at-large candidate would 
     be of equal worth. Further, each person's vote for an at-
     large candidate would not affect the value of his or her vote 
     for a candidate representing a congressional district. 
     Accordingly, all Utah residents' votes would have equal 
     value, thereby arguably comporting with the one person, one 
     vote principle.
       Based on the authority granted to Congress under the 
     Constitution to regulate congressional elections and relevant 
     Supreme Court precedent, it appears that a federal law 
     establishing a temporary at-large congressional district 
     would likely be upheld as constitutional.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) 
and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) each will control 10 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker, I yield my time to be managed by the 
gentlelady from the District of Columbia, soon to be, her voters 
willing, the actual Representative of the District of Columbia in every 
way possible.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from the District of 
Columbia (Ms. Norton) will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia.
  Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding me 
his time.
  Madam Speaker, this bill is covered with the full handprints of 
scores of Members, beginning on the other side of the aisle with 
Congressman Tom Davis, who planted and tirelessly cultivated the seed; 
and Utah Members Cannon and Bishop, joined by Mr. Matheson, the State's 
only Democratic Member.
  However, it was leadership that got us to this historic day, 
especially Speaker Pelosi's personal insistence, Majority Leader 
Hoyer's outspoken energy, Chairman Conyers' decades of persistence and 
Chairman Waxman's indispensable guidance.
  I am inspired daily by the citizens of this city, personified by 
Emory Kosh, a staff assistant in my office here in the House whose 
second child was born while he was serving in Iraq. Emory's military 
service follows in the tradition of D.C. residents, who first fought in 
the Revolutionary War to establish ``the Republic for which we stand,'' 
have fought and died for their country in every war since, and, like 
other Americans, have always been obliged to pay Federal income taxes, 
today ranking second among the 50 States and the District of Columbia 
in taxes paid to support the Government of the United States. Today, I 
come forward in their name.
  Our forefathers in this city were the three Virginians who signed the 
Constitution and the three signers from Maryland. Yet some seriously 
argue that the Virginians, the Marylanders and the other Framers fresh 
from the Revolutionary War, waged specifically to obtain 
representation, contributed land where thousands of their own residents 
resided, some of them veterans of the Revolutionary War, and then 
signed away their rights in the new Constitution.
  However you vote on the District's voting rights, do not slander the 
Framers. For two centuries, the fault has been right here in the 
Congress, not the flawed vision of the Framers.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1345

  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).
  Mr. PENCE. Madam Speaker, I come to the House today to express my 
support for the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2007.
  I believe after much consideration that this legislation is a 
constitutional remedy to a historic wrong. Now, while many have focused 
on the political consequences of such a move, I believe the only 
question for a Member of Congress on such matters is this: What does 
justice demand and what does the Constitution permit this Congress to 
do about it?
  The fact that more than half a million Americans live in the District 
of Columbia and are denied a single voting representative in Congress 
is clearly a historic wrong, and justice demands that it be addressed. 
At the time of the adoption of our present system of government, the 
Federal city did not exist apart from a reference in the Constitution. 
And when the District of Columbia opened for business in 1801, only a 
few thousand residents lived within her boundaries. Among our Founders, 
only Alexander Hamilton would foresee the bustling metropolis that the 
District of Columbia would become, and he himself was an advocate of 
voting representation.
  The demands of history in favor of representation for the Americans 
living in Washington, D.C. are compelling. In establishing the 
Republic, the single overarching principle of the American founding was 
that laws should be based on the consent of the governed. The first 
generation of Americans threw tea in Boston Harbor simply because they 
were denied a voting representative in the British Parliament. Given 
their fealty to representative democracy, it is inconceivable to me 
that our Founders would

[[Page 7304]]

have been willing to accept the denial of representation to so great a 
throng of Americans in perpetuity.
  But the demands of justice are not enough for Congress to act. As 
many of my colleagues have eloquently stated, under the principles of 
limited government, a republic may only take that action which is 
expressly authorized in its written constitution. In this regard, I 
believe that H.R. 1433 is constitutional. And I am not alone in this 
view.
  In support of this legislation, Judge Kenneth Starr, former 
independent counsel and U.S. Solicitor General observed: ``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.''
  Now, opponents of D.C. voting rights understandably cite the plain 
language of Article I of the Constitution that the House of 
Representatives be comprised of representatives elected ``by the people 
of the several States.'' Now if this were the only reference to the 
powers associated with the Federal city, it would be persuasive, but it 
is not. Article I, section 8, clause 17 provides that ``Congress shall 
have power to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever'' 
over the District of Columbia.
  In 1984, it would be Justice Scalia who would observe that the seat 
of government clause gives the Congress ``extraordinary and plenary 
power'' over our Nation's capital.
  And Congress has used this power to remedy the rights of Americans in 
the District of Columbia in the past. In 1949, the Supreme Court upheld 
legislation that extended access to the Federal courts to citizens of 
the district even though Article III expressly limited jurisdiction of 
those courts to citizens of States. As Judge Starr observed: ``The 
logic of this case applies here,'' and I agree.
  But one caveat, Madam Speaker. None of this argues for the District 
of Columbia ever to be granted a right to elect Members to the Senate. 
From the inception of our Nation, this House of Representatives was an 
extension of the people. The Senate, from the inception of our Nation, 
was an extension of the States. If the people of the District of 
Columbia would like two seats in the United States Senate, under the 
Constitution, they will have to become a State.
  You know, the Old Book tells us what is required: do justice, love 
kindness, and walk humbly with your God. I believe that justice demands 
that we right this historic wrong. The American people should have 
representation in the people's House. I believe that kindness demands 
that we do the right thing for all Americans regardless of race or 
political creed, and I believe that humility demands that we do so in a 
manner consistent with our Constitution.
  The D.C. House Voting Rights Act meets this test, and I am honored to 
have the opportunity to continue to play some small role in leading our 
constitutional Republic ever closer to a more perfect Union.
  I commend the gentleman from Virginia and my colleague, the delegate 
from the District of Columbia, for their yeoman's work on this 
legislation.
  Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
chairman of the Oversight Committee without whose leadership we could 
not have come to this day, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).
  Mr. WAXMAN. Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding to me.
  Today, we are considering a bill that will bring democracy to the 
District of Columbia. This bill will grant the District of Columbia a 
full vote in the House of Representatives. They have been denied full 
representation in Congress for over 200 years, and this will help right 
this long-standing injustice.
  But I want to use my time to point out that there have been two 
champions of this legislation who deserve recognition. One is 
Congresswoman Norton who has been working tirelessly on behalf of her 
constituents to forge a compromise that has bipartisan support; and the 
second is the ranking member of the Oversight and Government Reform 
Committee, and its former Chair, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom 
Davis).
  Last year as chairman of our committee, he led the charge for voting 
rights for the District. It was his inspiration that brought this 
compromise to the point now where I expect this bill will pass the 
House of Representatives and go on its way to the other body. This is a 
bill that is long overdue. I urge all of my colleagues to vote for this 
bill.
  H.R. 1433, the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2007, 
will grant the District of Columbia a full vote in the House of 
Representatives.
  District of Columbia residents have been denied full representation 
in Congress for over 200 years. District residents pay billions of 
dollars in federal taxes yet get no vote in Congress. This bill will 
help right this longstanding injustice.
  There have been two champions of this legislation who deserve 
recognition. One is Congresswoman Norton, who has worked tirelessly on 
behalf of her constituents to forge a compromise that has bipartisan 
support. The second is the Ranking Minority Member of the Oversight and 
Government Reform Committee, Representative Davis. Last year, as 
Chairman of the Committee, he led the charge for voting rights for the 
District.
  The District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act includes a number of 
important provisions.
  This bill will increase the size of the House by two seats. One of 
those seats will go to the District of Columbia and the other seat will 
go Utah, the next state in line to get a congressional seat. The bill 
prevents partisan gerrymandering by creating the new seat for Utah as 
an at-large seat and by ensuring that Utah does not redistrict its 
other congressional seats until apportionment is conducted following 
the 2010 census.
  H.R. 1433 also contains a nonseverability clause providing that if a 
court holds one section of this bill invalid or unenforceable, all 
other sections will be invalid or unenforceable. This is an important 
safeguard because it means that no section of this legislation can have 
legal effect unless the entire bill has legal effect. Under this 
legislation, Utah cannot be granted a seat in the House without the 
District also being granted a seat or vice versa.
  H.R. 1433 is a step in the right direction toward providing the 
residents of the District fair representation in Congress. I urge all 
of my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman 
from Georgia (Mr. Price) for the purpose of a unanimous consent 
request.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank the ranking member and appreciate his 
indulgence.
  I strongly oppose the underlying bill, as I believe it to be 
unconstitutional.
  The House of Representatives stands on the verge of voting on a 
flatly unconstitutional, historically egregious bill, the District of 
Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2007. This bill would grant the 
District of Columbia a full voting seat in the House of Representatives 
by circumventing the Constitution. While I agree that it is an 
injustice that any United States citizens not have voting 
representation in Congress, the contorted logic some have used to 
justify this bill is quite troubling.
  In supporting this proposal, Kenneth Starr wrote, ``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.'' While 
this may be true, the fact remains that the Constitution exclusively 
affords House representation to the states. Just because the District 
of Columbia was denied a seat in the People's House does not mean that 
Congress can ignore the Constitution.
  Advocates of the DC Voting bill are discounting as unpersuasive the 
``plain language'' of Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution, which 
states, ``The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members 
chosen every second Year by the People of the several states.'' As if 
that weren't enough, the next sentence declares, ``No Person shall be a 
Representative who shall not . . . when elected, be an Inhabitant of 
that State in which he shall be chosen.''
  It is indisputable that House representation is constitutionally 
limited to the states. In fact, the Bush administration recently 
declared the bill unconstitutional, citing 12 provisions in the 
Constitution that expressly link congressional representation to 
statehood. Certainly, no one is claiming that the District of Columbia 
is one of the 50 states.

[[Page 7305]]

  Sadly, constitutionality is not a concern of proponents of this 
legislation. The central argument from supporters of this bill is 
fairness. They argue that Members of Congress have a moral 
responsibility to right this wrong by any means. The Founding Fathers 
would be aghast at this brazen disregard for the Constitution in 
pursuit of a quick fix.
  Supporters of this feel-good legislation frequently cite the 
``District Clause'' of the Constitution as justification, which reads, 
``Congress shall have power . . . to exercise exclusive Legislation in 
all Cases whatsoever, over such District.'' It is correct that Congress 
has the power to govern the District of Columbia, but this does not 
mean that the residents of the District of Columbia have the right to a 
seat in Congress, giving them the power to legislate over the 50 
states.
  The District Clause is found in section 8 of article I, the same 
section that gives Congress the power to ``establish Post Offices'' and 
to ``make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval 
forces.'' Surely no one would propose granting Fort Gordon a seat in 
the House, but the promotion of this would follow the same logic.
  To be clear: I support representation for the residents of the 
District of Columbia but not under this bill's approach. It is truly 
unjust that these tax-paying citizens are denied the right to have 
their voice heard in the people's House. But Congress cannot create 
voting rights for D.C. residents by simply ignoring or contorting the 
Constitution because it is our will. There are two proper, 
constitutionally just courses of action to remedy this unfairness.
  First, the Founders gave Congress and the people the authority to 
amend the Constitution. This course would provide for a 51st state of 
the District of Columbia. But as the constitutional amendment process 
can be protracted and complicated, I support the second course--
retroceding the non-federal portion of Washington, D.C., to the State 
of Maryland. Following this plan, most of the residents would have full 
representation in the House and Senate, as residents of Maryland. This 
is a commonsense proposal with historic precedent. In 1846, the land 
west of the Potomac was ceded back to the Commonwealth of Virginia, and 
these people now enjoy full congressional representation.
  There is a great responsibility in supporting the republican form of 
government that our Founders created. And where injustices lie in the 
Constitution, Congress is right to try to correct them. But the 
greatest respect is owed to our Founders and our Nation as the longest 
surviving democracy in history. There is a reason for that and it has 
much to do with respecting the genius of our founding document. We must 
not ignore the principles of the constitutional republic our Founders 
laid out.
  It is fundamentally antithetical to pursue representative fairness 
while disregarding the Constitution. I am hopeful that supporters of 
this bill will see the great fault in their logic, and resolve the 
injustice of the residents of the District of Columbia not having a 
voting representative in Congress properly within the bounds of the 
Constitution.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to 
the Chair of the subcommittee with jurisdiction over the District of 
Columbia, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Madam Speaker, first of all, let me thank the 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia for yielding me this time. I 
also want to commend the chairman of oversight, the Honorable Henry 
Waxman, and the ranking member, Tom Davis, for their leadership on this 
tremendous legislation. But I also want to add accolades for the 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia who has put her heart, mind 
and soul into this legislation; and without her leadership, we 
obviously would not be here this afternoon.
  I have heard many people talk from both sides. I have heard 
individuals say that the Constitution denies the opportunity, and I am 
thinking of the Constitution as a living document. I don't want to keep 
the Constitution where it might have been. Representative Al Green made 
the most eloquent statement a few moments ago when he suggested there 
are always individuals on different sides of the Constitution. You can 
be on the right side, or you can be on the wrong side. You can be on 
the old side, or you can be on the new side; and the side that we are 
on this afternoon is the side that gives the residents of the District 
of Columbia the opportunity to help make more perfect this Union that 
we are a part of.
  I stand firmly in support of this legislation. Again, I commend my 
colleagues on Oversight and Government Reform and urge all of the 
Members to vote in favor of giving the District of Columbia residents 
the right to vote.
  Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 1433, the ``District of 
Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2007.'' I want to extend a thank 
you to Representatives Tom Davis and Henry Waxman, and especially to 
Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton for their hard work and dedication in 
introducing and moving this legislation forward to provide the District 
of Columbia the right to vote with full representation in the House of 
Representatives.
  The legislation before us today will give voting representation to 
over 500,000 District's residents and increase the size of the House 
from 435 to 437 voting members. The right to vote is the most basic act 
of citizenship. Voting representation for District residents who pay 
Federal taxes, defend our country during war, and contribute to the 
economic viability of other states, should not be disfranchised because 
they chose to live in the District of Columbia.
  The Constitution, ratified in 1789, provided for the creation and 
government of a permanent home for the national government. Article I, 
Section 8, Clause 17, called for the creation of a Federal district to 
serve as the permanent seat of the national government and granted 
Congress the power, ``to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases 
whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, 
by cession of particular states, and the acceptance of Congress, become 
the seat of government of the United States. . . .'' The Constitution 
grants Congress plenary power to govern the District of Columbia's 
affairs. This includes granting voting representation in the House of 
Representatives for the District of Columbia.
  On March 13, 2007, H.R. 1433 was passed by a decisive vote of 24 yeas 
to 5 nays in the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and 
reflects bipartisan support for this legislation.
  Madam Speaker, Congress is attempting to correct a longstanding 
inequity for residents in the Nation's Capital--taxation without 
representation. We in this body must up hold the Constitution by not 
denying a large mass of people their fundamental right to voting 
representation. Congress has the power to correct the wrongs of the 
past for District residents and it lies in our power to grant the 
people of DC the right to voting representation.
  Madam Speaker, I urge all my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance 
of my time.
  Madam Speaker, it is often said that if opportunity doesn't knock, 
build a door. With this bill, we are doing just that.
  Using the materials at hand today, we can open a portal to full 
democratic participation that for too long has remained locked. The 
circumstances are right, the stars are aligned, and the proposal is 
sound.
  Four years ago, we saw a confluence of events that set the stage for 
the compromise we have before us today. Two injustices met to create 
this opportunity to correct both. On the one hand, a long-ignored 
historical anomaly denies the citizens of the District of Columbia 
voting representation in the House of Representatives. On the other 
hand, a more recent problem with the census denies the citizens of Utah 
the additional House vote that a true count would have yielded.
  As it happens, one jurisdiction is predominantly Democratic, the 
other predominantly Republican. The circumstances opened the way to a 
politically neutral solution to both problems.
  Throughout our Nation's history, it has been just this kind of win-
win compromise that, however rooted in the fleeting circumstances of 
the day, provide enduring solutions to seemingly intractable problems.
  Each of us swears to uphold the Constitution, its letter and spirit. 
That living document is at its heart the most fundamental right of 
citizens in a democracy. All the citizens. So we rely on the plenary 
power found in the District clause to restore the full right of 
citizenship to our disenfranchised countrymen and women.
  After researching every possible avenue to right these wrongs and 
give the citizens of the District of Columbia and

[[Page 7306]]

Utah, the next State that is eligible for a vote under the formula, the 
representation to which they are entitled, we concluded the approach 
before us today is both constitutionally sound and politically viable.
  The former is our sworn duty. The latter is a practical imperative.
  In 4 years, I have found no evidence that any Member of this body 
seriously plans to attempt retrocession or campaign for a 
constitutional amendment. There is a good reason for that: they are 
politically not viable. Most Members, including me, don't waste their 
time tilting at windmills.
  By now, every Member is aware of the constitutional arguments. I ask 
that you think carefully about what you hear today. Every first-year 
law student in this country learns that you can't just read the 
Constitution once over literally to figure out what it means. But that 
is what the other side's arguments are. That is where it stops, and 
that is where it starts.
  Those opposing this bill ignore 200 years of case law and clear 
instruction from the Court that this is a congressional matter and 
requires a congressional solution. Under their literal reading of the 
Constitution, District residents would have no right to a jury trial 
under the sixth amendment because you have to be a State to have that 
right.
  D.C. residents would have no right to sue people from outside D.C. in 
the Federal courts; only people from States have that right under 
Article III, section 2.
  The full faith and credit clause would not apply to D.C. because that 
only applies to States under a literal reading of the Constitution.
  And the Federal Government would not be allowed to impose Federal 
taxes on the District. The Constitution says direct taxes shall be 
apportioned among the several States. Article I, section 2, clause 3.
  But in each of these cases, the Supreme Court has held that Congress 
can consider the District a State for purposes of applying these 
fundamental provisions. If Congress has the authority to do so 
regarding these lesser rights and duty, there should be no question we 
have the same authority to protect the most sacred right of every 
American: to live and participate in a representative Republic.
  It should also be pointed out that Congress granted voting 
representation in 1790 when it accepted the land that would become the 
Federal city. It then removed those rights, by statute, 10 years later. 
Those facts are undisputed. No amendment to the Constitution was 
considered necessary then. And those opposing the bill today will not 
explain, only assert, the claimed need for a constitutional amendment 
to reverse a decision that was made through enactment of a statute.
  This problem should be solved. A lot of people today will talk about 
the Framers and tell us that the Framers intended for the Federal city 
to have no direct representation.
  Do you really believe that if the capital had stayed in New York, the 
city would have been disenfranchised? Do you believe that if the 
capital had stayed in Philadelphia, the city would have been 
disenfranchised? Of course not, and neither should the people of 
Washington, D.C.
  What we know is men and women who fought and died to create this 
country were willing to die for people who might disagree with them 
politically. D.C. residents are paying Federal taxes. They are fighting 
and dying in the Middle East to bring democracy to that part of the 
world.
  This is no mere legal or political science exercise. It's a crisis. 
Your fellow Americans are being denied the full rights and benefits of 
representative government. We have before us this unique moment in our 
history, the opportunity to fulfill the promise of the Constitution and 
make our democracy whole again.

                              {time}  1400

  I hope we hear opportunity knocking, and I hope we hear the faint, 
but unmistakable whisper of conscience and of history, urging us all to 
seize the moment with courage and humility.

               [From the Washington Post, Mar. 14, 2007]

                            Rights and Wrong

       Historic legislation giving the people of the District a 
     vote in their national government is being debated in the 
     House of Representatives. Prospects for its passage have 
     never been better. The Democrats who control the House have 
     kept a promise to move the bill forward, but the 
     disenfranchisement of American citizens shouldn't be about 
     partisan politics. It should be about what is right and 
     wrong.
       Indeed, the legislation working its way through the House 
     sprang from he sense of injustice of a Republican House 
     member from suburban Virginia. Rep. Thomas M. Davis III 
     believes it is grotesque that D.C. residents are denied 
     congressional representation. he came up with an ingenious 
     way to get politics out of the equation. Two seats would be 
     added to Congress--one for the mostly Democratic District and 
     the other for heavily Republican Utah. The bill is on a fast 
     track thanks to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and 
     Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.). The House Oversight 
     and Government Reform Committee approved the measure 
     yesterday, with every Democrat and six Republicans voting for 
     it. The Judiciary Committee now takes it up, and a battle is 
     expected.
       It's hard to make a case for depriving people of a voice in 
     Congress when they pay federal taxes, serve on federal juries 
     and send family members off to war. It's also pretty 
     embarrassing that the Untied States, while preaching 
     democracy to the rest of the world, remains the only 
     democratic country where people in the capital city are 
     without representation. So opponents of D.C. voting rights 
     have latched onto the only argument they can make with a 
     straight face--that the bill is unconstitutional.
       Former judges and constitutional scholars such as Kenneth 
     Starr, Patricia Wald and Viet Dinh, not to mention the 
     American Bar Association, believe the bill is constitutional. 
     They argue that Congress has repeatedly treated the District 
     as if it were a state and that this treatment has been 
     upheld. For his part, Mr. Davis has delved into history to 
     make a compelling argument that the lack of a vote was never 
     the aim of the Founding Fathers but rather an ``undemocratic 
     accident.''
       We concede that serious people hold the contrary view. No 
     court has ever weighed in on the D.C. Voting Rights Act, so 
     the constitutional question is open. That, though, is an 
     issue for the courts to decide, in the event of a legal 
     challenge. It should not be an excuse for Congress to 
     continue to deny a basic right to more than half a million 
     people.
                                  ____


               [From the Washington Times, Mar. 22, 2007]

                         D.C. Due Voting Rights

                             (By Jack Kemp)

       How's this for irony: Headlines recently proclaimed that 
     the White House was opposed to giving the vote to the more 
     than 600,000 residents of our nation's capital, who, 
     incidentally, are paying federal income taxes to send members 
     of their families to Iraq and Afghanistan so as to guarantee 
     the right to vote for the residents of those nations' 
     capitals.
       Even as the Judiciary Committee of the House of 
     Representatives was passing the bill, cosponsored by Reps. 
     Eleanor Holmes Norton, D-D.C., and Tom Davis, R-Va., a 
     spokesman for President Bush was saying the bill is 
     unconstitutional without showing a modicum of sympathy or 
     even a modest understanding of this irony.
       The White House spokesman is putting the president in the 
     position of outspoken opposition to expanding the democratic 
     ideal here in the nation's capital, while simultaneously the 
     White House argues the president has the constitutional 
     authority to defend freedom and extend democratic rights to 
     the people of Baghdad and Kabul.
       I wrote last May: ``Throughout our nation's history, 
     District of Columbia citizens have given the full measure of 
     their allegiance to the United States. They have fought in 
     and died in every war in which the United States was engaged, 
     they have paid billions in taxes, and they have provided 
     labor and resources to the U.S. economy and government. Yet 
     for 200 years, District residents have been bystanders in the 
     governance of their nation.''
       With regard to the constitutional arguments, one of the 
     leading conservative lights in the House of Representatives, 
     Mike Pence of Indiana, recently wrote, ``Opponents of D.C. 
     voting understandably cite the plain language of Article I 
     that the House of Representatives be comprised of 
     representatives elected by `the people of the several 
     states.' If this were the only reference to the powers 
     associated with the federal city, it would be most 
     persuasive, but it is not. Article I, Section 8, Cl. 17 
     provides, `The Congress shall have power . . . to exercise 
     exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever' over the 
     District of Columbia.''
       Pence courageously and wisely voted yes against White House 
     wishes and, sadly, those of the GOP leadership.
       In 1984, Justice Antonin Scalia observed that the Seat of 
     Government Clause of the Constitution gives Congress 
     ``extraordinary and plenary'' power over our nation's 
     capital. Scalia added that this provision of the Constitution 
     ``enables Congress to do many

[[Page 7307]]

     things in the District of Columbia which it has no authority 
     to do in the 50 states . . . There has never been any rule of 
     law that Congress must treat people in the District of 
     Columbia exactly the same as people are treated in various 
     states.'' United States v. Cohen, 733 F.2d 128, 140 (D.C. 
     Cir. 1984).
       Chief Justice John Marshall acknowledged in the early 19th 
     century that ``It is extraordinary that the courts of the 
     United States, which are open to aliens, and to the citizens 
     of every state in the union, should be closed upon (district 
     citizens).'' But, he explained, ``This is a subject for 
     legislative, not for judicial consideration.''
       Marshall thereby laid out the blueprint by which Congress, 
     rather than the courts, could treat the District as a state 
     under the Constitution for the purposes of enfranchisement.
       Neither I, nor Tom Davis nor Mike Pence, is arguing for the 
     District of Columbia to become a state. Indeed, from the 
     inception of our nation the founders believed the House of 
     Representatives was the House of the people. I believe 
     passionately that the architects of the American Constitution 
     left us the tools to ensure that all American people should 
     have a voice and vote in the ``people's house.''
       I'm troubled by people in the White House who show 
     compassion for the people of Baghdad and Kabul, as they 
     should, but can't find it in their hearts to show anything 
     but indifference to the cries for justice in the nation's 
     capital.
       What these presidential advisers are doing is rigidly 
     interpreting the Constitution in such a way as to make the 
     Party of Lincoln into a party that condemns the people of our 
     nation's capital, including four of my 17 grandchildren, from 
     ever participating in the great issues of the day as debated 
     and decided in the House of Representatives.
       Indeed, this is taxation without representation.
       Republicans have historically supported civil, human and 
     voting rights, including the passage of the 13th, 14th and 
     15th Amendments. We have a great history of bipartisan 
     support for civil rights, but it was our presidential 
     candidate in 1964 who refused to take a stand for civil and 
     social justice for African-Americans.
       My question is, does this president want to continue the 
     legacy of Lincoln, Grant and Eisenhower, or that of Barry 
     Goldwater in 1964?
                                  ____


                [From the Washington Post, Feb. 7, 2007]

                            More Than Words

       National Democratic party leaders are on record with their 
     unequivocal endorsement of the District's bid for full voting 
     rights in the House of Representatives. Support is always 
     welcome, but what's needed is action. It's time for the 
     Democrats who control Congress to act on legislation to end 
     the disenfranchisement of citizens living in the nation's 
     capital.
       The Democratic National Committee voted last weekend to 
     support the measure, promising a grass-roots lobbying 
     campaign. It's a welcome boost for a bill that has languished 
     too long. Sponsored by Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-VA.) and 
     the District's nonvoting delegate, Eleanor Holmes Norton (D), 
     the measure would add two seats to the House--one for the 
     heavily Democratic District and the other for largely 
     Republican Utah. The bill enjoyed widespread bipartisan 
     support in the past Congress but was never scheduled for a 
     floor vote, to what should be the everlasting embarrassment 
     of the Republican leadership.
       Democrats are in a position to push the bill for approval, 
     but internal party squabbling has slowed its movement. Some 
     Democrats balked at doing anything for Utah until they were 
     convinced that the District seat wouldn't have a chance 
     unless balanced against Utah, which probably would get an 
     extra seat anyway after the next census reapportionment. In 
     recent days, Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif.) has raised the 
     concern that the bill would give Utah an extra electoral 
     college vote in the 2008 presidential election and could hurt 
     Democrats in a close race. The question is whether Democrats 
     will allow that highly remote and partisan concern to stand 
     in the way of their claimed support for fair representation 
     for District residents.
       Party insiders are confident that the disagreements will be 
     ironed out, and they stress that, unlike the Republican 
     leadership, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and 
     Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.) are genuinely 
     committed to voting rights for the District. We have no 
     reason to doubt that. But the strength of the bill crafted by 
     Mr. Davis and Ms. Norton is that it takes into account the 
     self-interest of both parties while weighing the needs of the 
     people of the District and Utah. Tinkering with that formula 
     could doom the bill, and no matter how good the intentions of 
     lawmakers, the District deserves results.
                                  ____


               [From the Virginian-Pilot, Mar. 21, 2007]

                   Sensible Compromise on D.C. Voting

       ``Taxation without representation'' has been a bedrock 
     excuse for American political dissent since Boston Tea Party 
     days.
       Which brings us to the perennial crack in the teacup--the 
     600,000 residents of the District of Columbia, many of whom 
     are required to pay taxes but none of whom gets to elect a 
     voting member of Congress.
       Now, Reps. Tom Davis, R-Va., and Eleanor Holmes Norton, the 
     District's non-voting representative to Congress, have teamed 
     to sponsor an innovative plan thought to have the best shot 
     in years of closing the gap between principle and practice.
       The D.C. Voting Rights Act of 2007 would expand the number 
     of U.S. House seats from 435 to 437, balancing a predictably 
     Democratic D.C. vote with one from a new, predictably 
     Republican Utah district.
       Previous expansions of congressional membership sought 
     similar balance. At the last census, Utah came within a 
     whisker of getting an additional seat. It fell short, Utahans 
     claim, only because hundreds of young Mormon missionaries 
     were on the road and weren't counted.
       The Norton-Davis legislation passed both the House 
     Government Operations Committee, which Davis used to chair, 
     and the Judiciary Committee, but never made it to the floor 
     when Republicans controlled the House.
       Now, the Democrats in charge expect to bring the proposal 
     to a floor vote, probably later this month.
       Opponents of the bill question its constitutionality, 
     noting that Article 1 says members should be chosen by ``the 
     people of the several states.'' Norton-Davis counters that 
     the District actually had a voting representative for several 
     years around the turn of the 19th century, so the precedent 
     already is set.
       Various constitutional scholars have opined that the 
     framers clearly intended for all the nation's citizens to 
     have voting representation at the highest levels of 
     government. Conservatives ascribing to that view include 
     former U.S. Circuit Judge Kenneth W. Starr, who served on the 
     D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.
       So long as a reasonable constitutional reading supports the 
     legislation, and it does, Norton-Davis ought to pass.
       A large block of taxpaying citizens should not to be 
     disenfranchised through no fault of their own. Tom Davis and 
     Eleanor Holmes Norton have offered a reasonable fix.
                                  ____


                   [From the Columbian, Jan. 4, 2007]

                       In Our View--Fair is Fair

       And D.C. residents are not getting a fair deal.
       Here are 435 voting members of the U.S. House of 
     Representatives. Washington, the 15th largest state with 6.3 
     million residents, has nine of them. That's 2.068 percent of 
     the House.
       Wyoming, the nation's smallest state with 509,000 people, 
     has one House member--0.229 percent.
       With 550,000-plus residents, the District of Columbia, 
     which would rank one above Wyoming if it were a state, has 
     zero voting members in the House.
       That's 0.000 percent.
       That's not fair.
       Congress can rectify this inequality and fix a glitch in 
     the Utah's House apportionment at the same time. Our federal 
     lawmakers should enact a proposal to increase House voting 
     members to 437. One new seat would go to the District of 
     Columbia and one to Utah. The D.C. seat would almost 
     certainly be won by a Democrat and Utah's by a Republican.
       The reasons for D.C. being shorted on representation for 
     more than two centuries are numerous and of debatable 
     legitimacy. What is indisputable is that more than a half-
     million Americans living in the very city that is the seat of 
     federal government face federal taxation without 
     representation, and it isn't fair. Utah's two U.S. senators 
     and the state's political establishment support this idea, 
     which died in the Republican-controlled Congress last month. 
     They make a convincing case that in the 2000 census, Utah was 
     undercounted because many of the state's young Mormons were 
     out of state doing missionary work. Had they all been 
     counted, the argument goes, Utah would have earned a fourth 
     House member and some other state would have lost one.
       There are two legitimate concerns. One is that the 
     Constitution says members of the House shall be chosen by 
     ``the people of the several states'' and D.C. is not a state. 
     But, many scholars say the Constitution also gives Congress 
     power ``to exercise exclusive legislation'' over D.C. and 
     therefore may give the District a voting member of the House.
       Then there's the fear that if Congress starts down this 
     road, it will add House members on political whims in the 
     future. But that hasn't been the practice. In fact, Congress 
     added two seats in 1959, giving one each to the new states of 
     Alaska and Hawaii, but after the 1960 census cut the total 
     back to 435. The new states kept one each and other states 
     gave up the two, based on population.
       A legitimate case can be made that D.C. should get one seat 
     and Utah should get nothing until the next census. But this 
     Utah-D.C. scenario is the best chance in decades for the 
     District of Columbia to get rightful representation. In the 
     name of fairness, Congress should make it happen.

[[Page 7308]]

     
                                  ____
          [From the Battle Creek Enquirer (MI), Jan. 5, 2007]

           Proposal Would Give D.C. and Utah New House Seats

       For years, the fact that residents of Washington, D.C., 
     have no voting representation in Congress has been a 
     political hot potato. In 1961, the 23rd Amendment to the 
     Constitution gave them the right to vote in presidential 
     elections, and a decade later Congress voted to allow the 
     district to send a nonvoting delegate to the House. That 
     delegate currently is Eleanor Holmes Norton, who is allowed 
     to vote on matters at the committee level, but not once they 
     come to the House floor.
       Now Congress may soon consider a bill that would increase 
     the voting membership of the House from 435 to 437, adding 
     new seats both for the District of Columbia and Utah.
       The argument for giving Utah a fourth House seat is 
     supported by those who insist the 2000 census undercounted 
     Utah's population because of the many young Mormon men who 
     travel out of that state as part of their missionary work.
       Since D.C. is considered a Democratic stronghold and Utah 
     is dominated by Republicans, the proposal has gained 
     bipartisan support and could be taken up early in this 
     congressional session.
       The District of Columbia was created to provide an 
     independent site for federal government that did not favor 
     anyone state. Congress moved there from Philadelphia in 1800, 
     and shortly thereafter the question of voting rights for D.C. 
     residents became an issue. The lack of a voting 
     representative long has been a sore point for many of the 
     district's approximately 600,000 residents, who pay federal 
     taxes and must abide by rules established by Congress.
       Congress approved a constitutional amendment to provide a 
     voting representative for district residents in 1978, but it 
     failed to be ratified by three-fourths of the states.
       There is debate among scholars as to whether increasing the 
     number of House members requires a constitutional amendment, 
     but supporters of this latest proposal insist that it does 
     not. They say that all that is required is for Congress to 
     revise a 1929 law that fixed House membership at 435 seats. 
     That limit was boosted to 437 in 1959 in order to give 
     representatives to the new states of Alaska and Hawaii, but 
     then went back to 435 with the reapportionment after the 1960 
     census.
       Washington, D.C., is the only national capital in any 
     democratic nation where residents do not have full voting 
     rights. We think district residents should have a voting 
     representative in Congress, and there is merit to the D.C.-
     Utah proposal that we hope will be considered soon by federal 
     lawmakers.
                                  ____


                [From washingtonpost.com, Mar. 22, 2007]

D.C. Voting: A GOP Issue--Opposition to a House Seat Goes Against Party 
                               Tradition

                          (By Carol Schwartz)

       Having personally written to President Bush and Congress 
     numerous times over the years urging them to support voting 
     rights for the citizens of our nation's capital, I was 
     disheartened to learn that the Republican leadership is 
     working to defeat legislation that would add a voting member 
     from the District of Columbia and a voting member from Utah 
     to the House of Representatives, and that the president is 
     thinking about vetoing the bill. As a fellow Republican, I 
     beseech them to reconsider.
       News accounts indicate that Republican opposition is based 
     largely on ``constitutional concerns.'' However, respected 
     constitutional scholars have argued that a congressional vote 
     for the District is well within the bounds of the 
     Constitution. Former solicitor general Kenneth Starr and 
     Patricia M. Wald, a former chief judge of the U.S. Court of 
     Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, jointly wrote, ``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.'' Viet Dihn, a Georgetown 
     University law professor and principal author of the USA 
     Patriot Act, argued in a paper submitted to the House 
     Committee on Oversight and Government Reform that it is 
     constitutional to give the District a vote.
       Regardless of the outcome of this debate, why would the 
     president--who has committed so much to fighting for 
     democracy around the world--and Republican members of 
     Congress not stand on the side of democracy for the 572,000 
     residents of the District of Columbia? Who is going to 
     challenge in court the rectification of this centuries-long 
     injustice? And if someone is cruel enough to try, let the 
     Supreme Court decide otherwise.
       I want to remind my fellow Republicans that historically 
     our party has been at the forefront of struggles to 
     enfranchise citizens and expand basic rights. It was a 
     Republican Congress, the 38th, that proposed the 13th 
     Amendment to abolish slavery. It was a Republican Congress, 
     the 39th, that proposed the 14th Amendment, guaranteeing due 
     process and equal protection under the law. It was a 
     Republican Congress, the 40th, that proposed the 15th 
     Amendment, guaranteeing citizens the right to vote regardless 
     of their race. And it was a Republican Congress, the 66th, 
     that proposed the 19th Amendment, guaranteeing women the 
     right to vote.
       I had hoped that the recent Republican Congress would 
     continue this admirable tradition. The introduction of a D.C. 
     voting rights bill by a Republican, Rep. Tom Davis (Va.), was 
     a good start. Although the bill made it out of committee, 
     unfortunately it never went to the House floor. President 
     Bush and Congress still have the opportunity to advance the 
     democratic cause here at home. And they should, particularly 
     since ours is the only capital city in any of the world's 
     democracies where citizens do not have voting representation 
     in their national legislature.
       In doing so, Republican members would uphold a proud 
     tradition as well as be in good company. For generations, 
     respected Republican statesmen have expressed support for 
     voting rights for D.C. residents. Former Senate majority 
     leader Robert Dole, during an earlier voting rights effort, 
     said, ``The Republican Party supported D.C. voting 
     representation because it was just, and in justice we could 
     do nothing else.'' Former Senate minority leader Howard 
     Baker, describing representation in the legislature as the 
     ``bedrock of our republic,'' said that Congress ``cannot 
     continue to deny American citizens their right to equal 
     representation in the national government.'' Former president 
     Richard Nixon said, ``It should offend the democratic sense 
     of this nation that the citizens of its capital . . . have no 
     voice in Congress.'' And former senator Prescott Bush, the 
     president's grandfather, said in 1961, ``Congress has treated 
     the District with slight consideration. We have treated it 
     like a stepchild, in comparison with the way we have treated 
     other States. . . . They should also be entitled to 
     representation in the Congress.''
       It is obvious that this injustice has persisted far too 
     long. Our country's leaders have within their power the 
     ability to address it now. It is time to give the residents 
     of the District of Columbia--who pay federal taxes and who 
     were subject to the military draft--a fundamental right that 
     all other Americans enjoy: our long overdue vote in the 
     United States House of Representatives. I implore the 
     president and Congress to do what I believe they know in 
     their hearts is right.
                                  ____


               [From the Washington Times, Mar. 20, 2007]

             D.C. Voting Rights and Congressional Politics

                           (By Tod Lindberg)

       When I moved to Washington 21 years ago and decided to live 
     in the District rather than Maryland or Virginia, I knew I 
     was voluntarily choosing to forgo something most Americans 
     take entirely for granted, namely, their say in choosing a 
     representative in the House and two members of the Senate. In 
     truth, I was not especially bothered by this lost opportunity 
     for political participation then, nor am I now.
       You could say, moreover, that no one lives in the District 
     involuntarily. If voting for a member of Congress and 
     senators is a sufficiently high priority for you, you can 
     probably find your way to a location that allows you to do 
     so. And you could remark, as well, the special constitutional 
     status of the District as precisely not a state, equal among 
     other states, but rather a place where the representatives of 
     all the states, that is, Congress as a whole, has 
     jurisdiction. One might even deem this constitutional 
     provision to have been an innovative and admirable solution 
     to the late 18th-century problem of the undue influence a 
     state might have were it home to the nation's capital.
       Nor is the District some sort of island of authoritarianism 
     in a sea of democracies. D.C. residents have for more than a 
     generation enjoyed substantial home-rule powers, including 
     the ability to elect a legislative body, the D.C. Council, 
     and a mayor who has genuine and not merely symbolic power. It 
     is undeniable that Congress second-guesses these locally 
     elected officials from time to time, and indeed reserves the 
     right to intervene on a massive scale in case of local 
     mismanagement, a judgment Congress alone will make, not 
     subject to appeal by local residents. We saw this in the days 
     of the Control Board. But in the ordinary course of events, 
     substantial political decisions are the province of locally 
     elected officials. And even at the national level, the 
     District is not entirely cut out, since it has three votes in 
     the electoral college that decides the presidency, the same 
     number as the least populous states.
       Nevertheless, how exactly is it a good thing that residents 
     of the District, uniquely among American taxpayers, have no 
     representation in Congress? I think critics of the proposal 
     now emerging to replace the District's participation-limited 
     delegate with a full-fledged voting member of Congress owe us 
     an explanation of why it's better for the country for 
     residents of the District not to be able to have a share in 
     selecting a member of the national legislature. That includes 
     the White House, which has expressed opposition to the 
     legislation on constitutional grounds.
       If the provision of the Constitution holding that members 
     of Congress shall come from the states (by implication, not 
     from anywhere that isn't a state) is dispositive, then

[[Page 7309]]

     why not let the Supreme Court be the body that says so? Since 
     at least some legal scholars believe that the provision cited 
     is not the last and dispositive word on the subject, why pre-
     empt the question? Or rather, please, let us hear the reason 
     from the executive branch why the president would choose to 
     pre-empt by asserting his view of the Constitution in his 
     veto message when the legislation gets to his desk.
       No, presidents and lawmakers shouldn't be casual about the 
     responsibility they accept in their oaths of office to 
     protect and defend the Constitution. But in this instance, we 
     have a true anomaly, hundreds of thousands of people who lack 
     what every other American taxpayer has, an equal say in the 
     selection of a lawmaker.
       It's not obvious that taking action to address this anomaly 
     would harm any other interest the Constitution protects. Oh, 
     one can spin out elaborate and paranoid scenarios, according 
     to which the representative from the District of Columbia 
     becomes the chairperson of a powerful committee and then, uh, 
     well, what exactly? Earmarks federal dollars to construct 
     bike paths in D.C.? Federally funded bike paths may be 
     stupid, but they are no more stupid in the District than in 
     any congressional district.
       In fact, addressing this anomaly of disenfranchisement 
     would fit into a centuries-long tradition of expanding the 
     franchise to those whom contemporaneous reasoning now 
     concludes are unreasonably excluded. If taking such action 
     requires a constitutional amendment, let the Supreme Court 
     say so.
       It seems to me that the only other possible objection, 
     besides the constitutional one, is politics. And it's a 
     pretty serious one, in that the representative from the 
     District would be a Democrat for the foreseeable future. Why 
     would Republicans be willing to go along with an extra 
     Democrat? But that's the beauty of the proposed legislation: 
     In adding a seat to Republican-friendly Utah, thereby 
     increasing the size of the House from 435 to 437, lawmakers 
     came up with a reasonable way to address a longstanding 
     injustice without harming anyone unduly. They devised a fair 
     political solution to a fair political objection.
       They don't do this so often, in the scheme of things, that 
     we should neglect supporting them when they do.
                                  ____


                    [From Roll Call, Feb. 28, 2007]

                             Vote for D.C.

       Now that Democrats have control of the House, it's simply 
     inexplicable that legislation to give voting rights to the 
     District of Columbia's delegate is not moving rapidly toward 
     passage.
       Voting rights for D.C. has broad support in the majority 
     party, including that of both Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) 
     and House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers (Mich.). Yet no 
     hearings have been scheduled on H.R. 328, co-sponsored by 
     D.C. Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D) and Rep. Tom Davis (R-
     Va.), to give Norton voting rights while giving Utah a fourth 
     Congressional seat and enlarging the House to 437 Members.
       The bill does present constitutional problems, as a recent 
     Congressional Research Service report details. Article 1, 
     Section 2 of the Constitution stipulates that the House shall 
     be made up of Members chosen every two years by the people of 
     the several states. Since D.C. is not a state, but a 
     constitutionally designated federal district, a CRS analysis 
     concluded last month that ``it is difficult to identify 
     either Constitutional text or existing case law that would 
     directly support the allocation by statute of the power to 
     vote in the full House of the D.C. delegate.''
       On the other hand, Article 1, Section 8 grants Congress 
     exclusive legislative authority ``in all cases whatsoever'' 
     over the District. As another CRS report suggested last 
     month, there is a conflict here. We suggest that Congress 
     resolve it by passing the Norton-Davis bill promptly and then 
     await a court test to determine its constitutionality. If the 
     measure is struck down, Congress should look for other 
     methods to grant voting rights to the District, which the 
     principle of representative government demands.
       The other options include a constitutional amendment; 
     ``retrocession,'' giving D.C. residents the right to vote in 
     Maryland; and Congressional action making D.C. (or at least 
     part of it) a state. Everyone of these solutions presents a 
     political problem--the fact that D.C. is overwhelmingly 
     Democratic--that the Norton-Davis bill neatly skirted by 
     balancing a vote in D.C. with a vote in overwhelmingly 
     Republican Utah.
       Meanwhile, the House has taken symbolic action by giving 
     D.C., as well as other U.S. possessions--Puerto Rico, 
     American Samoa, Guam and the Virgin Islands--a vote when the 
     House meets as a Committee of the Whole. But their votes 
     don't count if they make the difference in the outcome of 
     legislation. This amounts to the right to participate but not 
     to have an effect.
       D.C., with about 570,000 residents, has a larger population 
     than Wyoming and is shy by only about 100,000 of matching 
     three other states--which, of course, have two Senators and 
     at least one House Member. We hope that the Democratic 
     Congress will pass a measure granting D.C. full voting 
     rights--and that President Bush will sign it. In the 
     meantime, however, the Judiciary Committee and the House 
     should get on with passing Norton-Davis as an interim step 
     toward justice.
                                  ____


                [From the Washington Post, May 3, 2005]

                          A Vote in the House

       WHEN THE HOUSE of Representatives votes on federal taxes or 
     decides solemn questions such as when citizens must go off to 
     war, the District's representative, Eleanor Holmes Norton, 
     has to stand and watch as her Democratic and Republican 
     colleagues decide the fate of her constituents. Despite 
     having served and died in 10 wars and paid billions in 
     federal taxes, D.C. residents are still voteless in Congress. 
     That inexecusable situation exists despite polls showing that 
     the American public favors congressional representation for 
     D.C. residents. Today Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.) will 
     launch a second effort to rectify at least half of the 
     problem by sponsoring a bill that gives the District a vote 
     in the House. The measure would still leave the District 
     unrepresented in the Senate. The Davis proposal, however, is 
     a substantial advance in D.C. voting rights and deserves 
     strong bipartisan support in Congress.
       Mr. Davis's measure would achieve the goal of giving the 
     district a single vote by increasing the size of the House by 
     two and reapportioning seats. Given the most recent census, 
     the likely result would be an extra seat for Utah along with 
     the District. And given party registration and voting 
     patterns in the two jurisdictions, the Utah seat is likely to 
     be held by a Republican and the District's by a Democrat. The 
     new arrangement would last, under Mr. Davis's proposal, until 
     the regular 2012 reapportionment, at which time the House 
     would revert to 435 members to be divided by population among 
     the District and the states. No matter what happens to the 
     size of Utah's delegation at that point, the District would 
     keep its seat.
       This should be a win-win situation. For those hoping to 
     address the controversy over the last census count, when Utah 
     just barely lost out on a fourth seat, Mr. Davis offers a 
     remedy. As far as the District is concerned, the bill will 
     most assuredly give D.C. residents what Mr. Davis has called 
     ``the primary tool of democratic participation: 
     representation in the national legislature.''
       Unfortunately, blind partisanship may trump democracy 
     unless members take a stand against the present injustice. 
     Fear that the Republican-dominated Utah state legislature 
     would redraw lines to doom a Democratic member of the House 
     caused Democrats to balk at the Davis proposal in the last 
     Congress. We have stated on other occasions our own dislike 
     for the way redistricting is being conducted in most states--
     amounting to little more than state-sanctioned gerrymandering 
     benefiting incumbents, the majority party or both--and have 
     offered our own thoughts on a proper alternative. However, 
     depriving more than half a million District residents of a 
     fundamental right enjoyed by all other Americans because of 
     partisan politics is neither a proper nor an acceptable 
     response by the Democratic Party. A D.C. vote in the House is 
     the right thing to do. We remain fully committed to the 
     District having two senators as well as representation in the 
     House. The Davis proposal takes the nation's capital halfway 
     there.
                                  ____


                            [From the Hill]

                             Let D.C. Play

       The people of the District of Columbia have finally gotten 
     back their rightful representation in Major League Baseball; 
     the Washington Nationals have swiftly become an established 
     and moderately successful National League team. It now seems 
     odd that there were people who argued the D.C. residents 
     already had a local team--by which they meant the Orioles, 
     beyond the Maryland state line in Baltimore. All that has 
     changed; when there is a pennant to be won, the District will 
     no longer have to sit on the sidelines.
       Something like this happy event is now possible in the 
     political arena, too, with Rep. Tom Davis's (R-Va) 
     legislation that would temporarily increase House membership 
     to 437 by giving D.C. one voting seat, and Utah an extra one. 
     After the next census, the number would fall again to 435, 
     but Washington would keep its seat, and the remaining 434 
     would be divided among the states according to population.
       This as it should be. It is an injustice and an 
     embarrassment that people who live in the nation's capital 
     are disenfranchised. They have no less a moral right to a say 
     in the policies that govern them than any other American 
     citizens. It is pleasing that they now have another chance of 
     acquiring the legal right as well. No partisan calculations 
     should cloud principle when lawmakers vote on this issue. 
     Davis's bill deserves to become law.
       If the baseball analogy may be stretched yet further, 
     however, it is also worth noting that the new team did not 
     adopt the same name as the team that abandoned Washington a 
     generation ago: the Senators. There are those who argue that 
     the District should also have two senators in the upper 
     chamber of Capitol Hill, but the case for this is less 
     convincing than for voting representation in the House.

[[Page 7310]]

       The House is a proportional body, in that seats are 
     apportioned according to population numbers. But the Senate 
     is not representative in that way--never was, and never was 
     intended to be. Indeed it was, as is often being said these 
     days, designed as a counter-weight to the power of the more 
     purely representative body. Tiny states such as Delaware and 
     Wyoming have two senators, just as huge ones such as 
     California and Texas have two. Until the passage of the 17h 
     Amendment in 1913, senators generally were chosen by state 
     legislatures rather than directly elected by the people.
       Senate representation is the preserve of formal statehood 
     and there are reasonable arguments on both sides as to 
     whether D.C. should become a state. Whatever the dispute in 
     principle, however, there is no chance of D.C. statehood 
     soon. Perhaps it will come, but for now it's enough that 
     House representation is on the table again.
                                  ____


                     [From Roll Call, May 4, 2005]

                            Give D.C. a Vote

       If the District of Columbia were a state, it would rank 
     third in per-capita income taxes paid to the federal 
     government. In America's wars of the 20th century, the 
     District suffered more casualties than several states did. So 
     there is no excuse for the nation to continue to leave D.C. 
     residents without any representation in Congress.
       Ideally, the District should be represented in both the 
     House and Senate, as called for in Democratic-backed 
     legislation introduced by D.C. Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D) 
     and Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.). Unfortunately, that bill 
     has zero chance of passing and being signed into law. So, as 
     an interim measure--and we acknowledge it may be a long 
     interim--we urge leaders of both parties to get behind the 
     bill just reintroduced by Rep. Tom Davis (R-Va.) to give D.C. 
     a vote in the House. The measure would temporarily enlarge 
     the House by two, adding one seat for the District and one 
     for heavily Republican Utah--a constructive nod toward the 
     partisan balance that seems to be a prerequisite for passage.
       The Constitution gives Congress all the power it needs to 
     give D.C. a vote in Congress. In fact, Congress has the power 
     ``to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever'' 
     over the capital district. Legal scholars, including 
     conservatives such as former federal appeals court judge 
     Kenneth Starr, agree that the Constitution permits Congress 
     free rein on the issue of representation. While statehood 
     would require a constitutional amendment, voting 
     representation would not.
       We're glad to see that the idea of giving the District 
     representation has attracted the support of Republicans. 
     Davis' measure has 11 GOP co-sponsors, including two from 
     Utah. Two other bills, both of which would give D.C. 
     residents voting rights in Maryland by different means, are 
     also sponsored by Republicans, Reps. Dana Rohrabacher 
     (Calif.) and Ralph Regula (Ohio).
       Unfortunately, the GOP sponsors have not been able to 
     interest their party's leaders in their measures. In fact, 
     when Republicans took control of the House in 1995, one of 
     their first acts was to reverse a Democratic rule allowing 
     the D.C. Delegate to vote in the Committee of the whole House 
     when that vote was not decisive in the outcome. We hope that 
     Davis, the influential chairman of the Government Reform 
     Committee and former chairman of the National Republican 
     Congressional Committee, can convince his leaders of the 
     merits of the cause.
       Some Democrats have been opposed, both because they support 
     full representation and because they fear that Utah's GOP-
     dominated Legislature might eliminate the state's lone 
     Democratic district in the process of a mid-decade 
     reapportionment. The state's GOP Members should pledge not to 
     pursue such a course.
       There's not much that Republicans and Democrats are doing 
     together in this Congress. One thing that they can do, 
     however, is expand democracy right in their own backyard.
                                  ____


                 [From Human Events.com, Mar. 17, 2007]

            Why I Voted for D.C. Representation in the House

                          (By Rep. Mike Pence)

       Last week in the House Judiciary Committee, I voted in 
     favor of legislation granting the residents of the District 
     of Columbia the right to full voting representation in the 
     House of Representatives. I believe this legislation is a 
     constitutional remedy to a historic wrong. While many have 
     focused on the political consequences of such a move, the 
     only question for a Member of Congress on such matters is 
     this: what does justice demand and what does the Constitution 
     of the United States permit Congress to do to remedy this 
     wrong?
       The fact that more than half a million Americans living in 
     the District of Columbia are denied a single voting 
     representative in Congress is clearly a historic wrong and 
     justice demands that it be addressed. At the time of the 
     adoption of our present system of government, the federal 
     city did not exist apart from a reference in the 
     Constitution. When the District of Columbia opened for 
     business in 1801, only a few thousand residents lived within 
     her boundaries. Among the founders, only Alexander Hamilton 
     would forsee the bustling metropolis that Washington, D.C. 
     would become and he advocated voting representation for the 
     citizens of the District.
       The demands of history in favor of representation for the 
     Americans living in Washington, D.C. is compelling. In 
     establishing the republic, the single overarching principle 
     of the American founding was that laws should be based upon 
     the consent of the governed. The first generation of 
     Americans threw tea in Boston harbor because they were denied 
     a voting representative in the national legislature in 
     England. Given their fealty to representative democracy, it 
     is inconceivable to me that our Founders would have been 
     willing to accept the denial of representation to so great a 
     throng of Americans in perpetuity.
       But the demands of justice are not enough for Congress to 
     act. Under the principles of limited government, a republic 
     may only take that action which is authorized by the written 
     Constitution.
       In this regard, I believe that the legislation moving 
     through the Congress is constitutional. And I am not alone in 
     this view. In support of this legislation, Judge Kenneth 
     Starr, former independent counsel and U.S. solicitor general 
     observed, ``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''.
       Opponents of D.C. Voting understandably cite the plain 
     language of Article I that the House of Representatives be 
     comprised of representatives elected by ``the people of the 
     several states''. If this were the only reference to the 
     powers associated with the federal city, it would be most 
     persuasive but it is not. Article I, Section 8, CI. 17 
     provides, ``The Congress shall have power . . . to exercise 
     exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever'' over the 
     District of Columbia.
       Justice Antonin Scalia observed in 1984, that the Seat of 
     Government Clause, gives Congress ``extraordinary and 
     plenary'' power over our nation's capital. Scalia added that 
     this provision of the Constitution ``enables Congress to do 
     many things in the District of Columbia which it has no 
     authority to do in the 50 states. . . . There has never been 
     any rule of law that Congress must treat people in the 
     District of Columbia exactly the same as people are treated 
     in various states''. United States v. Cohen, 733 F.2d 128, 
     140 (D.C. Cir. 1984)
       And Congress has used this power to remedy the rights of 
     Americans in the District of Columbia in the past. In 1949, 
     the Supreme Court upheld legislation that extended access to 
     the federal courts even though Article III expressly limited 
     the jurisdiction of the federal courts to suits brought by 
     citizens of different states. As Judge Starr observed, ``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''.
       None of which argues for the District of Columbia to ever 
     be granted the right to elect members of the United States 
     Senate. In the most profound sense, from the inception of our 
     nation, the House of Representatives was an extension of the 
     people. I believe our founders left us the tools in the 
     Constitution to ensure that all the American people have a 
     voice in the people's house.
       The Senate, from the inception of our nation, was an 
     extension of the states. Senators were appointed by state 
     legislatures until 1915. The Senate was and remains the 
     expression of the principle of federalism in the national 
     legislature and should ever be so. If the people of the 
     District of Columbia would like two seats in the United 
     States Senate, they will have to become a state.
       The old book tells us what is required, ``do justice, love 
     kindness and walk humbly with your God.'' I believe that 
     justice demands we right this historic wrong. The American 
     people should have representation in the people's house. I 
     believe that kindness demands that, like Republicans from 
     Abraham Lincoln to Jack Kemp, we do the right thing for all 
     Americans regardless of race or political creed. And I 
     believe humility demands that we do so in a manner consistent 
     with our constitution, laws and traditions. The D.C. Voting 
     bill meets this test and I am honored to have the opportunity 
     to continue to play some small role in leading our 
     constitutional republic ever closer to a more perfect union.

  Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, has the gentleman yielded back his time?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman has expired.
  Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I want to end this debate by finally 
letting genuine constitutional scholars speak to this bill.
  To guarantee the Framers' promise to the citizens of Maryland and 
Virginia, who contributed their land to form this Capital City, the 
very first Congress enforced the District clause of the Constitution by 
law, guaranteeing the status quo during the 10- year transition period, 
and they said, by law thereafter, as memorialized in the Constitution 
itself.

[[Page 7311]]

  The Framers had left Congress fully armed with ``exclusive 
jurisdiction in all cases whatsoever,'' which former Court of Appeals 
Judge Kenneth Starr, who testified in favor of the bill, said, left 
Congress with power ``majestic in scope.''
  Professor Viet Dinh, President Bush's former Attorney General for 
Legal Policy, his point man on the Constitution in the Ashcroft Justice 
Department, testified in two separate committees that the bill is 
constitutional. He said that since the birth of the Republic, the 
courts and the Congress itself have treated the District as a State in 
treaties and in statutes and in applying the Constitution to the city. 
Members who reject the views even of conservative scholars and of the 
Supreme Court and the Federal courts supporting their views should be 
confident to send this bill to a conservative Supreme Court.
  Members are elected officials who can neither run nor hide behind 
their personal and inexpert views on the Constitution. Another branch 
will be held fully accountable for that weighty decision. Our decision, 
in just a few minutes, is just as weighty, today when the world sees us 
at war, we say, to spread democracy and wants to know whether we 
practice democracy or merely preach it. Our decision comes down to 
whether this House wants to be remembered for granting the vote or 
denying it, and whether this place will be the people's House or the 
House for some of the people.
  Mr. WYNN. Madam Speaker, I represent the 4th District of Maryland 
which abuts the District of Columbia. These citizens are our friends, 
neighbors, and relatives. It is time to give the citizens of the 
District of Columbia full representation in the House of 
Representatives. It is time to end the injustice of ``taxation without 
representation'' for the District and give these good citizens the 
right to vote.
  For 206 years, the citizens of the District of Columbia have paid 
taxes, served in the military and worked hard for this great country 
and yet, for over 200 years these citizens have been denied the right 
to representation. The United States is the only democracy in the world 
that, to date, has deprived the residents of its capital city full 
voting representation.
  We have sent thousands of soldiers overseas and spent billions of 
dollars fighting to bring democracy to the rest of the world. We must 
stand on the side of democracy in our country and give our own citizens 
in the District of Columbia the right to vote and an opportunity for 
full representation in this great democracy.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1433, 
the District of Columbia Fair and Equal House Voting Rights Act of 
2007.
  Today, the House of Representatives has a chance to correct an 
injustice that affects the nearly 600,000 residents of the District of 
Columbia. These citizens pay Federal taxes, serve in our military and 
the Federal Government and graciously host millions of American and 
foreign tourists every year, yet they remain unable to have their views 
represented in Congress. It is indeed ironic that the capital of our 
Nation, where our government and many non-governmental organizations 
work to promote freedom and liberty in other countries, is not 
representative of the ideals that we urge others to value. We have the 
chance to rectify this glaring problem today.
  One of the primary justifications of the American Revolution was our 
forefathers' opposition to ``taxation without representation.'' Indeed, 
in my home town Warwick, angry Rhode Islanders attacked and burned the 
British customs ship H.M.S. Gaspee in 1772 to demonstrate their 
opposition to British rule--one of the earliest acts of rebellion 
leading to the American Revolution. Fortunately, the residents of the 
District of Columbia have not resorted to such extreme tactics to 
achieve justice, but they have been more than patient, waiting more 
than 200 years for a right that is enjoyed by 300 million other 
Americans.
  The bipartisan legislation before us today would give the District of 
Columbia a voting member in the House, as well as create a second new 
seat for Utah, thereby raising the number of Members in the House to 
437. It would finally grant Washingtonians a voice in Federal 
legislation involving health, governance, budgeting, taxes, gun control 
and other matters directly affecting their lives and livelihoods. Our 
current system of disenfranchisement for District residents does not 
befit a nation as noble as the United States, and it is time for 
change.
  Madam Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support H.R. 1433 so that 
we may grant fair representation to the residents of Washington, DC.
  Mr. CANNON. Madam Speaker, today, the House is presented with a 
unique opportunity to address two prevailing problems with 
representation in the House.
  One relates to whether the District is entitled to a Representative 
and the other whether Utah is owed an additional seat in Congress 
because of the illegitimate counting of residents after the 2000 
census.
  Utah lost out on a 4th seat because of a census bureau decision to 
count, and to enumerate to their respective home States, government 
employees residing temporarily abroad, but not count similarly situated 
missionaries.
  Had the Bureau either not counted any Americans residing temporarily 
abroad, or counted all such Americans and not just those employed by 
the Federal Government, Utah would have been awarded a fourth seat.
  Although this legislation provides Utah the seat it deserves and was 
denied in the 2000 census, I do have concerns with the language in the 
bill which ties the hands of the Utah legislature.
  The preemption language is offensive and demeans the historic role of 
States in the reapportionment process.
  I offered an amendment that was rejected by the Rules Committee on a 
7-4 vote that would have simply removed the language of the bill 
mandating the ``at large'' seat in Section 4 and left it to the State 
to decide.
  The amendment would have changed ``shall'' to ``may'', and would not 
have prohibited an at large seat, but rather would have provided Utah 
the opportunity to choose whether to redistrict or not.
  The intent of my amendment was to reaffirm the role of the State in 
the decisionmaking process, but the Democrats treated the 10th 
Amendment of the Constitution as words without meaning by rejecting my 
amendment.
  Although I will vote in favor of this legislation, as this bill moves 
forward I will continue my efforts to push for inclusion of my 
amendment to protect the State's role in the process.
  Mr. SHAYS. Madam Speaker, as an original cosponsor of H.R. 1433, I am 
pleased we are moving quickly to consider this legislation, to finally 
give Washington, DC voting rights in the House of Representatives.
  This bill would establish the District of Columbia as a congressional 
district and thus grant the citizens of the District representation in 
Congress.
  The legislation also would grant an additional congressional seat to 
Utah based on the results of the 2000 Census.
  Unlike some previous versions of this legislation, H.R. 1433 would 
make these two seats permanent.
  The Oversight and Government Reform Committee has led the charge on 
granting the city of Washington, DC the right to have a full vote in 
the House of Representatives.
  The citizens of the District pay Federal taxes, so it is only right 
they have a say in Federal affairs.
  Madam Speaker, I urge the support of this important and historic 
legislation.
  Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Madam Speaker, I rise today in 
opposition to H.R. 1422, the District of Columbia House Voting Rights 
Act.
  Our Constitution clearly states that Members of Congress should be 
chosen by residents of States.
  However much we might revere our Nation's capital and appreciate its 
residents, our Founders decided not to make it a State.
  In fact, Alexander Hamilton offered an amendment at the 1788 
Constitution ratification convention to give D.C. representation in the 
House, but his amendment was rejected.
  In 1978, the 95th Congress passed a similar amendment, but only 16 of 
the required 38 States ratified it in the 7 year time period before it 
expired.
  The message from these votes is clear: only residents of States may 
have representation in Congress.
  The Constitution lays out a method for adding a new State to our 
Nation.
  If we truly want D.C. to have congressional representation, we can 
either work to make D.C. a State, make it part of an existing State, or 
we can either amend the Constitution, like the 95th Congress attempted 
to do.
  And if we actually did this the right way, we wouldn't spend years in 
litigation while D.C. residents' votes hang in the balance.
  Listen up America! This bill is merely a shortcut around the tools we 
have at our disposal, and is therefore blatantly unconstitutional.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on this bill.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, I strongly support the DC House Voting 
Rights Act. It is long overdue to give the nearly two-

[[Page 7312]]

thirds of a million residents of our Nation's Capital the fundamental 
right of representation.
  This is not a partisan issue. Maintaining a fair and responsive 
government is a duty that transcends politics. This legislation fairly 
addresses both parties by granting one seat in the House to the 
District and one additional seat to Utah, which is next in line to 
receive an additional House seat based on its population. This elegant 
and equitable solution leaves the overall composition of the House 
unchanged as the District seat is anticipated to be Democratic and the 
Utah seat Republican.
  Given this bipartisan spirit, I am disappointed that the 
administration is fighting to deny citizens their basic voting rights. 
I hope the President has the good sense to withdraw his veto threat. 
Any concerns this administration has regarding this bill's 
constitutional appropriateness are best left up to the judicial branch 
to clarify.
  I am proud to support this important legislation and urge its speedy 
passage into law. Residents of the District have waited long enough.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of 
H.R. 1433, The District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act.
  I want to encourage my colleagues to vote to extend full 
representation to the District of Columbia as well as to the state of 
Utah. The District of Columbia has long been recognized as one of the 
most Democratic jurisdictions in the Nation. Utah, by contrast, gave 
President Bush his largest margin of victory in the 2004 presidential 
elections. Extending rights to both sides of the spectrum would be the 
most politically neutral way to ensure proper and sufficient 
representation for all of our citizens.
  Regarding the residents of the District of Columbia, they have the 
full burden of Federal taxation and military conscription. These 
reasons alone should give the residents of the District of Columbia 
equal voting rights. In addition, voting rights have been extended to 
overseas voters, as well as to those in Federal enclaves within a 
State. Fairness and justice demand that Congress do the same for the 
citizens of the District, who are subjected to all Federal laws.
  Madam Speaker, some argue that the Framers never intended to give the 
District voting rights in Congress. In reality, however, the Founding 
Fathers never actually spoke about the District's rights because it was 
little more than a contemplated entity at the time. In fact, Congress 
has plenary power to address the welfare of the District and its 
residents.
  Another concern voiced by those who oppose the bill claim that the 
residents of the District will demand more rights. This is not 
necessarily true. However, if the District were to demand more rights, 
then it would be strictly a legal question and should therefore be 
reserved for the courts--not the House--to decide what is permissible 
and what is not.
  The District now has a little over half a million people, which was 
probably never contemplated by the Framers more than 200 years ago. It 
is my belief that the Framers of the Constitution would probably not 
support the idea that citizens of the United States are paying Federal 
taxes without fair and just representation in Congress.
  Madam Speaker, it truly is telling and somewhat shameful when several 
prominent international groups such as the Organization of American 
States (OAS), the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe 
(OSCE) and the U.N.'s Committee on Human Rights have all advocated for 
DC residents to obtain equal voting rights. Shouldn't we do the same? I 
think so. I hope the rest of my colleagues share in this belief and 
vote favorably on the passage of H.R. 1433.
  Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 260, the previous question is ordered on 
the bill, as amended.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


            Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Smith of Texas

  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. I am, Madam Speaker, in its current form.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

        Mr. Smith of Texas moves to recommit the bill H.R. 1433 to 
     the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform with 
     instructions to report the same back to the House promptly 
     with the following amendment:

       Add at the end the following new section:

     SEC. 6. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PERSONAL PROTECTION.

       (a) Reform D.C. Council's Authority To Restrict Firearms.--
     Section 4 of the Act entitled ``An Act to prohibit the 
     killing of wild birds and wild animals in the District of 
     Columbia'', approved June 30, 1906 (34 Stat. 809; sec. 1-
     303.43, D.C. Official Code) is amended by adding at the end 
     the following: ``Nothing in this section or any other 
     provision of law shall authorize, or shall be construed to 
     permit, the Council, the Mayor, or any governmental or 
     regulatory authority of the District of Columbia to prohibit, 
     constructively prohibit, or unduly burden the ability of 
     persons not prohibited from possessing firearms under Federal 
     law from acquiring, possessing in their homes or businesses, 
     or using for sporting, self-protection or other lawful 
     purposes, any firearm neither prohibited by Federal law nor 
     subject to the National Firearms Act. The District of 
     Columbia shall not have authority to enact laws or 
     regulations that discourage or eliminate the private 
     ownership or use of firearms.''.
       (b) Repeal D.C. Semiautomatic Ban.--
       (1) In general.--Section 101(10) of the Firearms Control 
     Regulations Act of 1975 (sec. 7-2501.01(10), D.C. Official 
     Code) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(10) `Machine gun' means any firearm which shoots, is 
     designed to shoot, or can be readily converted or restored to 
     shoot automatically, more than 1 shot by a single function of 
     the trigger, and includes the frame or receiver of any such 
     weapon, any part designed and intended solely and 
     exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, 
     for use in converting a weapon into a machine gun, and any 
     combination of parts from which a machine gun can be 
     assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the 
     control of a person.''.
       (2) Conforming amendment to provisions setting forth 
     criminal penalties.--Section 1(c) of the Act of July 8, 1932 
     (47 Stat. 651; sec. 22--4501(c), D.C. Official Code) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(c) `Machine gun', as used in this Act, has the meaning 
     given such term in section 101(10) of the Firearms Control 
     Regulations Act of 1975.''.
       (c) Repeal Registration Requirement.--
       (1) Repeal of requirement.--
       (A) In general.--Section 201(a) of the Firearms Control 
     Regulations Act of 1975 (sec. 7-2502.01(a), D.C. Official 
     Code) is amended by striking ``any firearm, unless'' and all 
     that follows through paragraph (3) and inserting the 
     following: ``any firearm described in subsection (c).''.
       (B) Description of firearms remaining illegal.--Section 201 
     of such Act (sec. 7-2502.01, D.C. Official Code) is amended 
     by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(c) A firearm described in this subsection is any of the 
     following:
       ``(1) A sawed-off shotgun.
       ``(2) A machine gun.
       ``(3) A short-barreled rifle.''.
       (C) Conforming amendment.--The heading of section 201 of 
     such Act (sec. 7--2502.01, D.C. Official Code) is amended by 
     striking ``Registration requirements'' and inserting 
     ``Firearm Possession''.
       (2) Conforming amendments to firearms control regulations 
     act.--The Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 is amended 
     as follows:
       (A) Sections 202 through 211 (secs. 7-2502.02 through 7-
     2502.11, D.C. Official Code) are repealed.
       (B) Section 101 (sec. 7--2501.01, D.C. Official Code) is 
     amended by striking paragraph (13).
       (C) Section 401 (sec. 7--2504.01, D.C. Official Code) is 
     amended--
       (i) in subsection (a), by striking ``the District;'' and 
     all that follows and inserting the following: ``the District, 
     except that a person may engage in hand loading, reloading, 
     or custom loading of ammunition for firearms lawfully 
     possessed under this Act.''; and
       (ii) in subsection (b), by striking ``which are 
     unregisterable under section 202'' and inserting ``which are 
     prohibited under section 201''.
       (D) Section 402 (sec. 7--2504.02, D.C. Official Code) is 
     amended--
       (i) in subsection (a), by striking ``Any person eligible to 
     register a firearm'' and all that follows through ``such 
     business,'' and inserting the following: ``Any person not 
     otherwise prohibited from possessing or receiving a firearm 
     under Federal of District law, or from being licensed under 
     section 923 of title 18, United States Code,''; and
       (ii) in subsection (b), by amending paragraph (1) to read 
     as follows:
       ``(1) The applicant's name;''.
       (E) Section 403(b) (sec. 7--2504.03(b), D.C. Official Code) 
     is amended by striking ``registration certificate'' and 
     inserting ``dealer's license''.
       (F) Section 404(a)(3) (sec. 7--2504.04(a)(3)), D.C. 
     Official Code) is amended--
       (i) in subparagraph (B)(i), by striking ``registration 
     certificate number (if any) of the firearm,'';

[[Page 7313]]

       (ii) in subparagraph (B)(iv), by striking ``holding the 
     registration certificate'' and inserting ``from whom it was 
     received for repair'';
       (iii) in subparagraph (C)(i), by striking ``and 
     registration certificate number (if any) of the firearm'';
       (iv) in subparagraph (C)(ii), by striking ``registration 
     certificate number or'';
       (v) in subparagraph (D)(ii), by striking ``or registration 
     number''; and
       (vi) in subparagraph (E), by striking clause (iii) and 
     redesignating clauses (iv) and (v) as clauses (iii) and (iv).
       (G) Section 406(c) (sec. 7--2504.06(c), D.C. Official Code) 
     is amended to read as follows:
       ``(c) Within 45 days of a decision becoming effective which 
     is unfavorable to a licensee or to an applicant for a 
     dealer's license, the licensee or application shall--
       ``(1) lawfully remove from the District all destructive 
     devices in his inventory, or peaceably surrender to the Chief 
     all destructive devices in his inventory in the manner 
     provided in section 705; and
       ``(2) lawfully dispose, to himself or to another, any 
     firearms and ammunition in his inventory.''.
       (H) Section 407(b) (sec. 7--2504.07(b), D.C. Official Code) 
     is amended by striking ``would not be eligible'' and all that 
     follows and inserting ``is prohibited from possessing or 
     receiving a firearm under Federal or District law.''.
       (I) Section 502 (sec. 7--2505.02, D.C. Official Code) is 
     amended--
       (i) by amending subsection (a) to read as follows:
       ``(a) Any person or organization not prohibited from 
     possessing or receiving a firearm under Federal or District 
     law may sell or otherwise transfer ammunition or any firearm, 
     except those which are prohibited under section 201, to a 
     licensed dealer.'';
       (ii) by amending subsection (c) to read as follows:
       ``(c) Any licensed dealer may sell or otherwise transfer a 
     firearm to any person or organization not otherwise 
     prohibited from possessing or receiving such firearm under 
     Federal or District law.'';
       (iii) in subsection (d), by striking paragraphs (2) and 
     (3); and
       (iv) by striking subsection (e).
       (J) Section 704 (sec. 7--2507.04, D.C. Official Code) is 
     amended--
       (i) in subsection (a), by striking ``any registration 
     certificate or'' and inserting ``a''; and
       (ii) in subsection (b), by striking ``registration 
     certificate,''.
       (3) Other conforming amendments.--Section 2(4) of the 
     Illegal Firearm Sale and Distribution Strict Liability Act of 
     1992 (sec. 7--2531.01(2)(4), D.C. Official Code) is amended--
       (A) in subparagraph (A), by striking ``or ignoring proof of 
     the purchaser's residence in the District of Columbia''; and
       (B) in subparagraph (B), by striking ``registration and''.
       (d) Repeal Handgun Ammunition Ban.--
       (1) Definition of restricted pistol bullet.--Section 
     101(13a) of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 
     (sec. 7--2501.01(13a)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(13a)(A) `Restricted pistol bullet' means--
       ``(i) a projectile or projectile core which may be used in 
     a handgun and which is constructed entirely (excluding the 
     presence of traces of other substances) from one or a 
     combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, 
     beryllium copper, or depleted uranium; or
       ``(ii) a full-jacketed projectile larger than .22 caliber 
     designed and intended for use in a handgun and whose jacket 
     has a weight of more than 25 percent of the total weight of 
     the projectile.
       ``(B) The term `restricted pistol bullet' does not include 
     shotgun shot required by Federal or State environmental or 
     game regulations for hunting purposes, a frangible projectile 
     designed for target shooting, a projectile which the Attorney 
     General of the United States (pursuant to section 921(a)(17) 
     of title 18, United States Code) finds is primarily intended 
     to be used for sporting purposes, or any other projectile or 
     projectile core which the Attorney General finds is intended 
     to be used for industrial purposes, including a charge used 
     in an oil and gas well perforating device.''.
       (2) Repeal of ban.--Section 601 of the Firearms Control 
     Regulations Act of 1975 (sec. 7-2506.01, D.C. Official Code) 
     is amended--
       (A) by striking ``ammunition'' each place it appears (other 
     than paragraph (4)) and inserting ``restricted pistol 
     bullets''; and
       (B) by striking paragraph (3) and redesignating paragraph 
     (4) as paragraph (3).
       (e) Restore Right of Self Defense in the Home.--Section 702 
     of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 (sec. 7-
     2507.02, D.C. Official Code) is repealed.
       (f) Remove Criminal Penalties for Possession of 
     Unregistered Firearms.--
       (1) In general.--Section 706 of the Firearms Control 
     Regulations Act of 1975 (sec. 7-2507.06, D.C. Official Code) 
     is amended--
       (A) by striking ``that:'' and all that follows through 
     ``(1) A'' and inserting ``that a''; and
       (B) by striking paragraph (2).
       (2) Effective date.--The amendments made by paragraph (1) 
     shall apply with respect to violations occurring after the 
     60-day period which begins on the date of the enactment of 
     this Act.
       (g) Remove Criminal Penalties for Carrying a Firearm in 
     One's Dwelling or Other Premises.--
       (1) In general.--Section 4(a) of the Act of July 8, 1932 
     (47 Stat. 651; sec. 22--4504(a), D.C. Official Code) is 
     amended--
       (A) in the matter before paragraph (1), by striking ``a 
     pistol,'' and inserting the following: ``except in his 
     dwelling house or place of business or on other land 
     possessed by that person, whether loaded or unloaded, a 
     firearm,''; and
       (B) by striking ``except that:'' and all that follows 
     through ``(2) If the violation'' and inserting ``except that 
     if the violation''.
       (2) Treatment of certain exceptions.--Section 5(a) of such 
     Act (47 Stat. 651; sec. 22--4505(a), D.C. Official Code) is 
     amended--
       (A) by striking ``pistol'' each place it appears and 
     inserting ``firearm''; and
       (B) by striking the period at the end and inserting the 
     following: ``, or to any person while carrying or 
     transporting a firearm used in connection with an organized 
     military activity, a target shoot, formal or informal target 
     practice, sport shooting event, hunting, a firearms or hunter 
     safety class, trapping, or a dog obedience training class or 
     show, or the moving by a bona fide gun collector of part or 
     all of the collector's gun collection from place to place for 
     public or private exhibition while the person is engaged in, 
     on the way to, or returning from that activity if each 
     firearm is unloaded and carried in an enclosed case or an 
     enclosed holster, or to any person carrying or transporting a 
     firearm in compliance with sections 926A, 926B or 926C of 
     title 18, United States Code.''.
       (3) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection 
     shall apply with respect to violations occurring after the 
     60-day period which begins on the date of the enactment of 
     this Act.

  Mr. SMITH of Texas (during the reading). Madam Speaker, I ask 
unanimous consent that the motion be considered as read and printed in 
the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I object.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will read.
  The Clerk continued reading the motion to recommit.
  Mr. CONYERS (during the reading). Madam Speaker, I withdraw any 
objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the motion is considered 
as read and printed in the Record.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas is recognized for 5 
minutes.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Madam Speaker, the motion to recommit I have 
offered contains a bipartisan proposal by Representatives Mike Ross and 
Mark Souder, the District of Columbia Personal Protection Act.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle have suggested today 
that District of Columbia citizens have the right to vote in Congress. 
If that is the case, then they must also agree that the citizens of the 
District should have a constitutionally guaranteed right to possess 
firearms.
  Currently, D.C. citizens are prevented from owning any handgun at 
all. Even those who lawfully own and store a rifle or shotgun are 
prohibited from using them to defend themselves, their families or 
their homes.
  District law threatens honest people with imprisonment if they 
unlock, assemble or load their guns even under attack. Although the 
District has the most stringent gun control laws in the Nation, they 
still suffer from one of the highest murder rates. Since January 1 of 
this year alone, 35 people have been murdered in the District. Last 
year over 150 people were murdered, and 2,000 suffered gun assaults.
  This violence continues unabated, despite the strict gun control 
laws. It is time to restore the rights of law-abiding citizens to 
protect themselves and to defend their families.
  On March 9, 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of 
Columbia Circuit struck down some, but not all, of the District of 
Columbia's gun control laws as unconstitutional. The court agreed with 
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, the Justice Department 
and constitutional scholars, present and past, that the second 
amendment protects the right of individuals to possess firearms. This 
court decision, which will continue to wind its way through the 
judicial system,

[[Page 7314]]

compels Congress to act now to protect all second amendment rights.
  Mr. Speaker, the prohibition of firearms in the District of Columbia 
is as ineffective as it is unconstitutional. It is high time we rectify 
this wrong.
  I urge my colleagues to support this measure.
  Madam Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Souder), who in the last Congress passed a piece of 
legislation very similar to the motion to recommit that we consider 
now.
  Mr. SOUDER. I thank Mr. Smith for his leadership on this motion to 
recommit and his long-standing leadership in the Judiciary Committee, 
and for including the Personal Protection Act in our motion to 
recommit.
  This has been passed by the House in two different forms, in the 
appropriations bill and as a free-standing bill. It is the first clear 
gun control vote, and possibly the only one we will have this year. It 
is a matter of whether you believe the District of Columbia should have 
the second amendment.
  We can dispute what the Constitution says in other areas, but clearly 
the Constitution says that people have the right to own and bear arms 
for self-protection. This legislation has been upheld now, in terms of 
homes, by the D.C. District Court, but it is only a district court 
ruling. This would codify it, make it clear that there are not second-
class citizens on this second amendment.
  D.C., while it has had a decline in the homicide rate, it is less 
than the rest of the country, it has led the country repeatedly. It is 
five times the national average in murders, in spite of having the most 
stringent gun control law that restricts the right to bear arms. Up 
until the D.C. court ruling, for a gun in your home you had to have it 
locked, disassembled, with a key in another location, without the 
bullets in it. And when a criminal came into your house, you would have 
to go find the key for the cabinet, put your gun together, go find a 
bullet to protect yourself. This needs to be codified by Congress that 
we passed multiple times.
  The majority of Members of Congress are sponsors of this bill, and we 
need to make sure that the District of Columbia residents have this 
protection. There are many charges made, false charges, machine guns, 
all this type of stuff. This is the same right that people throughout 
America have that has been constitutionally upheld, and if we can pass 
this law, we will once again make the citizens of the District of 
Columbia have the same second amendment rights as the rest of America.

      H.R. 1399, the District of Columbia Personal Protection Act


                     what would the legislation do?

       H.R. 1399 would allow law-abiding citizens of the District 
     of Columbia (D.C.) to exercise their second amendment right 
     to own rifles, shotguns and handguns by repealing the current 
     draconian registration requirements and bans. More 
     specifically, it would: repeal the registration requirements 
     for firearms; eliminate criminal penalties for possession of 
     firearms; repeal the ban on semi-automatic firearms; repeal 
     the ban on the possession of ammunition; permit the storage 
     of armed firearms in one's home or place of business; and 
     eliminate the criminal penalties for carrying a handgun in a 
     person's home or business.
       H.R. 1399 would not affect any law directed at true 
     criminal conduct, and would leave in place strict penalties 
     for gun possession by criminals and for violent crime 
     committed with guns.


                   what are d.c.'s current gun laws?

       Washington, D.C. has perhaps the most restrictive gun 
     control law in the United States. Yet, at the same time, 
     Justice Department figures show that the District is usually 
     ``the murder capital'' of the country. It's no coincidence 
     that when law-abiding Americans are unable to defend 
     themselves and their families, violent crimes and murder will 
     increase. Here are some of the particulars of the current 
     D.C. law:
       All handguns are banned unless they were owned and 
     registered in the District before 1977;
       The citizens of the District--even the few remaining legal 
     handgun owners--are prohibited from even carrying their 
     handguns in their own homes;
       All guns must be registered with the Metropolitan Police 
     Department;
       Even rifles and shotguns that can be legally registered and 
     owned in the District, must be stored unloaded, and 
     disassembled or locked--rendering them useless for self-
     defense--unless the gun is kept at a place of business. 
     Apparently the D.C. government thinks it's more important to 
     let people protect their business assets than to protect 
     their homes and families;
       The D.C. Code absurdly defines many (if not most) semi-
     automatic firearms as ``machine guns'' based on their 
     ammunition capacity, rather than on how they work. This 
     definition is totally inconsistent with federal law.
       The ``District of Columbia Personal Protection Act'' would 
     fix each of these injustices and restore constitutional self-
     defense rights to the law-abiding citizens of the District.
       Under this bill, D.C. citizens would enjoy the same self-
     defense rights as residents of the 50 states. The bill would 
     allow honest citizens to own rifles, shotguns and handguns, 
     without the current bureaucratic registration requirements. 
     And it would allow law-abiding people to use guns to protect 
     their homes and families.
       The bill would not affect any law directed at true criminal 
     conduct, and would leave in place strict penalties for gun 
     possession by criminals and for violent crime committed with 
     guns.


                       has d.c.'s gun ban worked?

       The ``gun control capital'' of the United States is 
     repeatedly also the violent crime and murder capital of the 
     nation--not coincidentally.
       Prior to the enactment of the gun ban, the homicide rate in 
     D.C. had been declining, but it increased after the ban was 
     imposed in 1976. By 1991, D.C.'s homicide rate had risen more 
     than 200 percent. By comparison, the U.S. homicide rate rose 
     only 12 percent during the same period. As of 2002, D.C.'s 
     homicide rate is almost double the rate when its handgun ban 
     took effect. As of 2002, it is almost five times higher then 
     the national average. (Source: FBI, Metropolitan Police of 
     the District of Columbia).
       According to Justice Department crime statistics, 2003 saw 
     D.C. once again earn its infamous distinction as murder 
     capital of America. It was the 15th time in 16 years that the 
     District has earned this dubious distinction. (Source: Bureau 
     of Justice Statistics).
       A January 2004 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 
     (CDC) report found no conclusive evidence that gun control 
     laws help prevent violent crime, suicides or accidental 
     injuries in the United States. The national task force of 
     healthcare and community experts found ``insufficient 
     evidence'' that bans on specific guns, waiting periods for 
     gun buyers and other such laws changed the incidence of 
     murder, rape, suicide and other types of violence.


         what's the constitutional justification for h.r. 1399?

       On March 9, 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. 
     Circuit overturned D.C.'s gun control law, ruling it 
     unconstitutional. The majority wrote (in a 2-1 decision):
       ``To summarize, we conclude that the Second Amendment 
     protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. That 
     right existed prior to the formation of the new government 
     under the Constitution and was premised on the private use of 
     arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the 
     latter being understood as resistance to either private 
     lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government 
     (or a threat from abroad). In addition, the right to keep and 
     bear arms had the important and salutary civic purpose of 
     helping to preserve the citizen militia. The civic purpose 
     was also a political expedient for the Federalists in the 
     First Congress as it served, in part, to placate their Anti-
     federalist opponents. The individual right facilitated 
     militia service by ensuring that citizens would not be barred 
     from keeping the arms they would need when called forth for 
     militia duty. Despite the importance of the Second 
     Amendment's civic purpose, however, the activities it 
     protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an 
     individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or 
     her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia.''
       The U.S. Appeals Court also concluded that the current D.C. 
     law ``. . . amounts to a complete prohibition on the lawful 
     use of handguns for self-defense. As such, we hold it 
     unconstitutional.''
       In addition, the Appeals Court rejected the argument that 
     the second amendment does not apply to D.C. because it is not 
     a state.


                 how does ``home rule'' fit into this?

       Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution grants 
     Congress the power ``To exercise exclusive Legislation in all 
     Cases whatsoever'' over the District.
       When Congress chose to delegate home rule to the District 
     in the 1970s, it specified that legislation by the District 
     must be ``consistent with the Constitution of the United 
     States'' and ``reserve[d] the right, at any time, to exercise 
     its constitutional authority as legislature for the District, 
     by enacting legislation for the District on any subject''. 
     (District of Columbia Self-Government and Governmental 
     Reorganization Act (P.L. 93-198), secs. 302 and 601.) 
     Numerous court cases have reaffirmed congressional authority 
     over the District.

  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this motion to 
recommit.

[[Page 7315]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. CONYERS. This is the most startling double hypocrisy I have ever 
heard of on a bill of this magnitude. Very clever, whoever dreamed this 
up. The motion to recommit would deny everyone in this House the right 
to vote on whether citizens would gain the right to vote, and at the 
same time arm them with military-type weaponry that is being used in 
Iraq right now to destroy aircraft and bring down helicopters.
  We would also repeal the District's strong ban on handgun ammunition 
that can pierce body armor worn by police officers and other law 
enforcement officials at a time when security has become a top priority 
in the District, making military-style assault weapons readily 
available.
  Now, the most important person I have ever met in my life, with due 
respect to all the great people I have had the honor of working with as 
a Member of Congress, is Martin Luther King, Jr. If he is looking down 
on us now to see if we are working for justice and peace in our 
country, in our Capital and throughout the world, I am sure he would be 
as dismayed as I am by putting a gun control vote up for a motion to 
recommit.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. 
Davis.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Let me just say to my colleagues, I think 
the gun ban in the District is ridiculous, and I would join with my 
colleagues in overturning it. The problem is this motion doesn't do 
that. Instead of bringing this motion back to the floor forthwith for a 
vote up or down to continue this resolution and send it to the Senate 
with the gun ban, it sends it back to the committee; is that correct, 
Mr. Smith? It does not send it back to the floor, this sends it to 
committee. So essentially this vote doesn't go anywhere. You can get 
your vote on gun rights, but it kills the bill, and that is the 
intention of this. And it is put there to put Members in a difficult 
situation. If you want to get a vote on District voter rights, you have 
to vote against this.
  I would hope that we can have a free vote on the District gun ban 
later on. The courts have overturned it. I don't think it is a good 
law. But this doesn't overturn it because this kills the bill, and with 
it kills the amendment.
  I would urge my colleagues to reject it.
  Mr. CONYERS. I thank the gentleman.
  I now turn to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia, Eleanor 
Holmes Norton, and recognize her at this time.
  Ms. NORTON. I ask my colleagues not to be fooled. The House will give 
you plenty of times to vote on guns in the District of Columbia. This 
is not a motion to recommit, it is a motion to shoot the bill dead.
  Most of the time you can vote for the motion to recommit and still 
save the bill. Not true here. If you vote for the motion to recommit, 
you will kill this bill. Please do not do it.
  This matter is in the courts. No matter what we do here, it is a 
nullity because it is now in the Federal courts, and it is in the 
Federal courts, on a constitutional question, and that will rule the 
day.
  These people are trying to kill voting rights for the District of 
Columbia. They have prevailed on guns here before, they will do it 
again. Those of you who are for guns and for voting rights for the 
District of Columbia, vote against the motion to recommit or else you 
are voting against voting rights for the residents of the District of 
Columbia.

                              {time}  1415

  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to section 2 of House Resolution 
260, further proceedings on the bill will be postponed.

                          ____________________