[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 7]
[House]
[Pages 9387-9404]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




          DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HOUSE VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 2007

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 317, I call up 
the bill (H.R. 1905) 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 text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 1905

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

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

     SEC. 2. TREATMENT OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AS CONGRESSIONAL 
                   DISTRICT.

       (a) In General.--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.

[[Page 9388]]

       (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.''.
       (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);''.

     SEC. 3. 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 2(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 final undesignated paragraph of 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.

     SEC. 4. 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. Pursuant to House Resolution 317, the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Smith) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan.


                             General Leave

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks 
on H.R. 1905, the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2007.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin the debate on this 
measure by yielding myself as much time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this past Monday on April 16, Emancipation Day, District 
of Columbia residents and others gathered by the thousands at Freedom 
Plaza and marched to the Capitol, calling on Congress to ``demand the 
vote.''
  On that day in 1862, President Abraham Lincoln signed the District of 
Columbia Compensated Emancipation Act, freeing approximately 3,100 men, 
women and children who were held in bondage. That was several months 
before, of course, President Lincoln's issue of the Emancipation 
Proclamation on New Year's Day, 1863.
  I stand before my colleagues in the House today and cannot help but 
note that the District of Columbia was the starting point for the 
Emancipation President, as he was called, but it still does not have 
the full voting franchise that is at the heart of U.S. citizenship. 
This hardly seems right, and we have come today, assembled again to 
correct this.
  Monday's marchers sent a message to Congress: District residents have 
had enough of ``taxation without representation.'' That is a message 
that all Americans and all students of American history should 
understand. District residents just want what Americans elsewhere 
enjoy: a full share in American democracy.
  This simple but compelling message has reached Congress, and today we 
are acting on it. Today we will do our part to correct a 200-year-old 
injustice. We have a constitutionally sound, bipartisan, politically 
balanced response that will give, at last, citizens of the District of 
Columbia full representation in the House.
  The United States is the only democracy in the world, ladies and 
gentlemen, where citizens living in the capital city are denied 
representation in their legislature. Almost 600,000 people who call the 
District of Columbia home, who pay taxes, go off to war, and observe 
the other responsibilities of citizenship still do not have a vote in 
the Congress.
  At Monday's march, we heard from a District of Columbia veteran who 
was one of the first soldiers sent to Iraq in March, 2003, and as a 
dual citizen of the United States and Iraq, he can participate fully in 
the Iraqi democratic process which includes electing voting members of 
the Iraqi National Legislature, but as a resident of the District of 
Columbia, his rights as a U.S. citizen are limited.
  Well, his day has come, as well as for that of all of the citizens of 
this great District of Columbia. I hope that we can move this debate 
through as efficiently and as effectively as possible, and move toward 
a finish of a job that we have undertaken in more than one Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, last month the House considered a similar piece of 
legislation. As has become the Democrats' antidemocratic custom, no 
amendments were allowed. The language of the bill was changed hours 
before it came to the House floor, and Republicans were allowed only a 
motion to recommit.
  Today, we are back again to consider legislation to 
unconstitutionally give D.C. residents a voting representative in 
Congress. Since the wording of the legislation has been changed without 
approval by the committee of jurisdiction, we will not have an 
opportunity to give D.C. residents the right to possess weapons to 
protect themselves and their families. And the reason we cannot give 
them that right is the same reason the bill was withdrawn last month: 
The Democratic leadership is afraid Congress would approve it.
  It is a shame that a bill that supposedly supports democracy is being 
brought up in such an undemocratic manner. The majority waived its own 
rules and will pass a separate tax increase, all to ram through the 
House

[[Page 9389]]

an unconstitutional bill they rewrote at the 11th hour with no 
amendments allowed.
  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.''
  This legislation was constitutionally suspect last month and it is 
constitutionally suspect today. The Constitution explicitly says that 
Members of Congress can only be elected by people who live in States. 
Article I section 2 reads, ``The House of Representatives shall be 
composed of Members chosen every second year by the people of the 
several States.''
  Judges and legal experts agree that since D.C. is not a State, it 
cannot elect Members of Congress. In fact, a Federal district judge 
here in D.C. already has spoken on this point stating clearly, ``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.''
  And the House Judiciary Committee also has spoken on this point. When 
the House Judiciary Committee under the leadership of Democratic 
Chairman Peter Rodino in the 95th Congress reported out a 
constitutional amendment to do what this bill purports to be able to do 
by statute, the report stated, ``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.'' So what is 
being attempted with the legislation before us today is something long 
recognized as requiring a constitutional amendment.
  Further, this bill unfairly subjects many citizens to unequal 
treatment. It grants Utah an additional Representative who will run at-
large or statewide rather than in the individual district provided for 
in the redistricting plan the Utah legislature passed last year. 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 own 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 would have more voting power than the voters of every other 
State.
  The new bill the majority drafted at the 11th hour even fails to 
strike the current position of the Delegate that represents Washington, 
D.C. Currently, that delegate can vote in committee. So this bill not 
only grants voters in Utah two voting Members when every other voter 
only gets one, but also gives District voters two votes in committee, 
one vote for the D.C. Delegate and one vote for the new D.C. Member of 
Congress. Congratulations to Utah and D.C. voters.
  Some feel sincerely that the Constitution can be pulled and stretched 
a little and interpreted otherwise, but at least we can agree that it 
is by no means certain that the bill is constitutional. What is certain 
is that congressional voting for D.C. residents could be obtained by a 
constitutional amendment.
  In 1978, Congress approved such a constitutional amendment, but only 
16 of the 38 States necessary ratified it. As I mentioned, at the time 
the Democratic chairman of the Judiciary Committee said the only 
legitimate way to give D.C. residents the right to vote in Federal 
elections was a constitutional amendment as opposed to this kind of 
legislation.
  Why is that process being ignored now? Is it because of the fear of 
failure again?
  Like many Members of Congress, I favor giving D.C. residents the 
right to vote for Members of the House and the Senate; but this bill 
doesn't do that. It limits D.C. residents to voting only for House 
Members. This bill does not allow D.C. residents to vote for Senators. 
Why are we considering a bill that gives D.C. residents only half their 
rights? Isn't that ``taxation without representation''? Or maybe it is 
``taxation with half-representation.'' Maybe we should refund D.C. 
residents half their taxes if this bill passes.
  There is a solution, and it treats the residents of D.C. better than 
this bill. It is constitutional. It is more likely to succeed in a 
constitutional amendment, and it will give D.C. residents the right to 
vote for both House Members and Senators.
  D.C. was originally carved out of Maryland. If D.C. were given back 
to Maryland, except for the Capitol and some Federal buildings, D.C. 
residents would be residents of a State and have the same voting 
rights. It has been done before. That part of D.C. that was once part 
of Virginia was returned to Virginia in 1846, so the precedent is 
there. Such legislation would only require a majority vote in Congress 
and in the Maryland legislature. Both are controlled by the Democratic 
Party.
  Why are we waiting? Why not the best for D.C. residents? Why are we 
spending time on a bill that is constitutionally suspect and would be 
challenged in court? Why are we not acting now to return the District 
to Maryland and assure D.C. residents the right to vote in all Federal 
elections as quickly as possible?
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure now to yield 1 minute to 
the distinguished Speaker of the House of Representatives, Ms. Nancy 
Pelosi.
  Ms. PELOSI. I thank the gentleman for yielding me time and for his 
leadership in bringing this legislation to the floor.
  Mr. Speaker, today is a proud day for this House and for the District 
of Columbia and for our Nation. Today, we will fulfill our obligation 
to do right by the citizens of the District of Columbia.
  Mr. Speaker, I commend the steadfast leadership, the exceptional 
tenacity, the relentless persistence of the gentlewoman from the 
District of Columbia (Ms. Norton). Because of her today, America will 
be greater.
  I also appreciate the leadership of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Tom Davis) making this bill one that has bipartisan cosponsorship. 
Again, without his participation, we wouldn't be here. For his support 
over a long period of time, we are all in your debt, Mr. Davis.

                              {time}  1245

  I want to thank also Mr. Conyers and Mr. Waxman for their leadership; 
Steny Hoyer, who has made this a mission in his life. It is a proud day 
for all of us.
  Mr. Speaker, I take some personal pleasure in today's proceedings, 
because when I was born, my father was a Member of Congress. He was on 
the Appropriations Committee and he chaired the District of Columbia 
committee. At that time there was no mayor, there was no home rule. He 
was a strong supporter for the District to attain both. He would never 
have imagined all those many, many years ago that it would take this 
long to get a full vote on the floor for the District of Columbia.
  And of course we would like, Mr. Chairman, to have statehood for the 
District of Columbia so they could have full representation for their 
taxation. But today we take this giant step.
  This bipartisan effort to secure full voting representation in this 
House should command the support of all. Indeed, 82 percent of the 
American people support the District of Columbia having full voting 
rights on the floor of the House. This vote fulfills the promise of our 
democracy. It reflects what we stand for at home and preach around the 
world.
  As the Supreme Court has said: ``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 we, as good citizens, must live.''
  Today, we seek to affirm an enduring principle of our democracy, the 
right to be heard and represented fully. For more than 200 years, the 
citizens of the District of Columbia have been denied full voting 
representation. This legislation corrects a serious flaw in our 
democracy.

[[Page 9390]]

  Mr. Speaker, every single day that this Congress is in session, we 
take a pledge to the flag and to the Republic for which it stands. And 
at the end we say, ``with liberty and justice for all.'' That ``for 
all'' must include the people of the District of Columbia.
  America is at its best and honors the cause of justice and freedom 
when all voices are fully represented. And we know that the citizens of 
the District of Columbia will give their voices to a vision of justice, 
equality and opportunity for all. They have already had the voice. Now 
they will have the vote.
  Now is the time to honor our democracy. We will not rest until full 
voting representation in the House is granted to the District of 
Columbia. That is our obligation and our pledge.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to my 
friend and colleague from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) who is the ranking 
member of the House Agriculture Committee and also a senior member of 
the Judiciary Committee.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized 
for such time as he may consume.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentleman for yielding and it is at this 
time my pleasure to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. 
Davis.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I would ask if the gentleman 
from Michigan could yield me 2 minutes as well.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to add 2 minutes on to Mr. 
Davis' allotted time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 4 minutes.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Taxation Without Representation, the 
phrase that sparked this Nation's revolution of independence, still 
fuels the aspirations of District residents, especially this week when 
they paid taxes to a Federal Government in which they are not fully 
represented.
  So this House once again considers a bill to correct this historical 
anomaly that leaves those living closest to the seat of our democracy 
without the same rights as their fellow citizens living everywhere else 
in our vast Nation. We persist because the cause is right and patience 
a vice against long-festering injustice.
  Today, there is no need to repeat everything said 3 weeks ago. The 
history, the case law, the constitutional analysis have all been 
recited. We have heard from the opponents of this legislation who rely 
on a single argument championed by one very liberal constitutional 
lawyer.
  We counter with the studied opinions of two former Federal judges, 
including Judge Kenneth Starr, and 25 legal scholars from the best law 
schools in the country, including Viet Dinh, who the Bush 
administration relied on to write the PATRIOT Act. Anyone who would 
have been moved by those arguments has already been persuaded.
  Instead, I want to focus on the moral imperative to act, even in the 
face of difficulty or doubt. A great man of letters once said: 
``Nothing will ever be attempted if all possible objections must first 
be overcome.'' There will always be an excuse not to try. Refute one 
opposing argument, another sprouts like a weed. In this case, the 
scales of justice cannot be moved with weightless legal theories. The 
balance is tipped decidedly by the solid facts and heavy effects of 
disenfranchisement endured every day by those who live in the Nation's 
Capital.
  The people of the District of Columbia have served in every war this 
country has fought. Think about that for a second. These Americans 
bravely risked their lives, not to defend the freedoms they had, but to 
protect the promise of freedoms they hoped to have restored. They 
dutifully pay many millions of dollars in Federal taxes year in and 
year out, with absolutely no say in how that money may be spent.
  But these are the obvious sacrifices of living in the Federal City. 
The small daily contributions of this city's citizens should not be 
overlooked. District residents truly serve this Nation every day 
performing thousands of Federal jobs. But when this House votes on the 
shape, the size and the cost of that government, they are invisible, 
unseen and unheard in debates that affect their lives more directly 
than most.
  As a Republican, I am not willing to bear the shame of failing to try 
to resolve this matter after 200 years. According to our party's own 
Web site, ``The Republican Party was organized as an answer to the 
divided politics, political turmoil, argument and internal divisions, 
particularly over slavery, which plagued many political parties in 
1854.'' Our first Presidential candidate, John C. Fremont, ran under a 
slogan: ``Free soil, free labor, free speech, free men, Fremont.''
  We exist as a party to increase representation and liberty in this 
country and in this world. This legislation is in the highest 
traditions of this party that fought for free speech, fought to abolish 
slavery, and fought to give women the right to vote.
  So I ask my Republican colleagues to see through the fog of armchair 
constitutional analysis and do the right thing. There is still time to 
cast a Republican vote, a vote to preserve our party's heritage and to 
vote to expand liberty.
  Opponents of this legislation will apologize that the Constitution 
won't allow them to do the good they wish they could do. I am sorry, 
but I can't accept that. At the end of the day, this is not an argument 
about what Congress can do. It is about what Congress is willing to do.
  Those of us who are supporting this bill are not nervous about its 
constitutionality. We are convinced that this Congress already has the 
authority we need to expand freedom and liberty in this Nation. Might 
we be wrong? Possibly. The Supreme Court has never decided a case like 
this. But even if we are proven wrong, there is nobility in attempting 
to do the right thing. There is honor in acting, not just talking, to 
end injustice.
  To those still shackled by doubt, I offer the words of Reverend King: 
``Take the first step in faith. You don't have to see the whole 
staircase. Just take the first step.'' Take that step with me and pass 
this bill.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to turn now to the chairman of 
the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Jerry Nadler of New York, and 
recognize him for 3 minutes.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Speaker, it is a stain on our national honor that the 
citizens of our Capital City are disenfranchised without any votes in 
Congress. We presume to lecture other nations on the importance of 
democracy; but today we are being put to our own test, and we must not 
fail.
  Now, speakers on the other side say that this bill is 
unconstitutional. They say, and they point out correctly, that the 
Constitution says that the House of Representatives shall be composed 
of Members chosen every second year by the people of the several 
States. Washington, they say, isn't a State. QED. That's the end of the 
subject. But no, it isn't. It is not the end of the subject. The fact 
is, article III, section 2 says the judicial power, Federal 
jurisdiction shall extend to controversies between citizens of 
different States. Controversies between citizens of different States, 
that is the basis for jurisdiction for Federal lawsuits, some Federal 
lawsuits, many Federal lawsuits.
  Well, what about a controversy when someone from the District of 
Columbia sues someone from Virginia or New York or Pennsylvania? Well, 
in 1805, the Supreme Court ruled that diversity jurisdiction did not 
exist between a citizen of the District of Columbia and a citizen of 
Virginia, in the case of Hepburn v. Ellzey, because the District of 
Columbia was not a State.
  But the Court also said that Congress, under its power to legislate 
for the District of Columbia, could decide that, for purposes of 
diversity jurisdiction, the city of Washington, D.C. should be 
considered a State. Congress took its time in doing so, but did make 
that decision.
  And there was a Supreme Court decision in 1949, a mere 145 years 
later. These things don't go that rapidly. 1949, in National Mutual 
Insurance Company of the District of Columbia v. Tidewater, the United 
States Supreme Court said, aha, Congress, having acted, the District of 
Columbia is a

[[Page 9391]]

State for purposes of diversity jurisdiction under article III of the 
Constitution.
  Congress has as much power to decide that the residents of the 
District of Columbia have the right to vote for Congress, which 
requires States, as Congress has the right to decide, upheld by the 
Supreme Court, that residents of the District of Columbia, have the 
right to sue citizens of other States. If the Congress has that power 
for purposes of giving the District of Columbia residents the right to 
sue and be sued by citizens of other States in Federal courts for 
diversity jurisdiction, it has the same power, the exact same 
constitutional power to decide that, for purposes of representation in 
Congress, citizens of the District of Columbia may have that 
representation in Congress.
  So it is, I think, clear, but certainly very arguable, that Congress 
has ample power constitutionally. And if someone wants to challenge 
them, let them go to court. But it is not a valid argument to oppose 
this bill which is necessary for elementary democracy in this country.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  I rise in opposition to H.R. 1905, the District of Columbia House 
Voting Rights Act. There is no doubt that citizens of the District of 
Columbia have no 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 
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 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.
  We amended the United States Constitution for that purpose. If the 
advocates of this seek to do the same for representation in the House, 
they need to amend the United States Constitution.
  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 
Representative from their district, and once for another Representative 
at large. This would clearly violate the constitutional principle of 
one-man, one-vote by granting Utah citizens disproportionately large 
voting power.
  Adding insult to injury, this new bill we have before us today does 
not include the language from the previous bill, H.R. 1433, to 
eliminate the position of D.C. Delegate. Under this new bill, it 
appears that the District of Columbia would not only unconstitutionally 
be granted the same voting rights that State residents enjoy, but it 
would give D.C. greater representation than any State currently enjoys. 
The D.C. Delegate would continue to be eligible to vote in committee, 
and in the Committee of the Whole; and in addition, the new D.C. 
Representative would also be eligible to vote in committee and on the 
floor.

                              {time}  1300

  While every other district would get one vote in committee and on the 
floor, the District of Columbia would get two votes in committee and 
two votes on the floor under this new language.
  Finally, the procedure for bringing this bill to the floor is, again, 
appalling. Debate has been blocked on a bill that affects the relative 
voting power of citizens in each of our congressional districts. The 
majority has once again denied us even the opportunity to discuss 
amendments, including an amendment by Ranking Member Smith to simply 
provide for an expedited judicial review of the bill after it is 
enacted in order to determine its constitutionality.
  Furthermore, it is very telling and disappointing that the majority 
has decided that it would rather violate its own PAYGO rules than allow 
an open and fair discussion on the underlying bill.
  For all of these reasons, I urge my colleagues to oppose this very 
poorly crafted legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the distinguished 
gentleman from Alabama, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Ladies and gentlemen, we have here a very interesting constitutional 
question. My good friend and distinguished member of the Judiciary 
Committee I think has raised four, maybe five points that disturb him 
greatly, but the main one is that it is unconstitutional. The point of 
the matter is that there are those who think it is constitutional and 
those who think it is unconstitutional. Can't we let the courts decide 
this besides 435 great lawyers working on this?
  Mr. Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman 
from Alabama, Mr. Artur Davis.
  Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished Chair of 
the committee for honoring me by giving me a chance to speak during 
this momentous debate.
  And I want to begin with a simple observation. If you scour the globe 
and you look at the places that are listed as democracies, the places 
where the consent of the governed is what drives the politics, there is 
not a single one where the people who live in the capital do not have a 
representative to their parliamentary body. No, not one. That is 
telling, and it ought to frame everything that we say here today 
because the system of government in this country and the way we have 
gone about business until now has been unique in the world. This is the 
only place in the world where the people who live in the capital have 
no voice.
  Now, let me speak to some of the constitutional arguments that have 
been raised. I find it very telling, Mr. Speaker, that many of my very 
able colleagues on the other side of the aisle have spent a lot of time 
in their recommit motion and other places, making a point about the 
recent D.C. Circuit ruling about the right to bear arms. They have 
brought that unrelated issue into this debate.
  But it is interesting for this reason, and I take out this dog-eared 
copy of the Constitution. If there is one document that ought to be 
well worn, I suppose it is the Constitution.
  If you look at the second amendment, Mr. Speaker and Mr. Chairman, 
that our opponents in this debate rely on, it says ``A well regulated 
militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of 
the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed,'' a clear-cut 
reference to the security of a free State.
  Our friends on the other side of the aisle say that is relevant to 
Washington, D.C. They say there is a right to bear arms that the people 
shall enjoy. If it is so in the context of someone carrying around a 9 
millimeter or a semiautomatic, it must be so in the context of people 
walking into a ballot and voting for a delegate who is a representative 
who has a voice here.
  What kind of a system of government says that the right to have a 9 
millimeter outweighs the right to vote? You can't have it both ways in 
this argument. You can't say you throw out the State in the second 
amendment, but

[[Page 9392]]

somehow you make the State giant and bold and capitalized and 
italicized in the context of this representation.
  Another point that Mr. Nadler touched upon: We hear from the 
opposition that D.C. is a special thing, a Federal district, that it is 
neither the United States nor the States so, therefore, it belongs in 
its own special category. If that is the case, to my friends on the 
other side, take out your copy of the Constitution, plow your way 
through it, and look at amendment after amendment. If that 
interpretation is so, that D.C. is not a State or the U.S. Government, 
it means the equal protection clause doesn't apply to Washington, D.C. 
It means that the antipoll tax provision doesn't apply to Washington, 
D.C. It means that every other provision of the Constitution that 
contains the word ``State'' or ``U.S.'' does not apply.
  No one makes that argument that the people of Washington, D.C. are 
utterly shorn of rights because they are neither a State nor the United 
States. If you don't make it in another context, you cannot make it in 
this one.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to respond to 
the gentleman from Alabama.
  The second amendment to the Constitution refers to the ``State.'' 
When the Constitution refers to the ``States,'' meaning today 50 
States, then 13 States, it is referring to them in the plural. The 
``State'' in the second amendment refers to the country collectively.
  And to the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee, for 
whom I have great respect but also great disagreement on this issue, I 
hope that given the fact that we do acknowledge a difference of opinion 
on what the Constitution says means that he will join with us in 
seeking for expedited judicial review if, as I hope is not the case, 
this should be passed and sent to the courts for their review.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Mr. Speaker, before I begin to set forth 
my opposition to this piece of legislation, let me refer back to the 
comments made by the previous speaker, which looked back over 150 years 
to try to find a case to provide some substantiation for their 
argument, and they did so by finding a case with regard to judicial 
intervention.
  In that case they cited that the Supreme Court held that this 
Congress could allow or broaden the judicial authority, if you will, of 
the Federal courts. I think their example, in essence, proves too much. 
You cannot simply take one sentence or two sentences out of the U.S. 
Constitution and draw a conclusion from that. What you have to do is 
read the entirety of the Constitution.
  If you had done that, you would realize that the courts have always 
held, and the Founders' intent always was, that this body, this House, 
and this Congress has broad latitude when it comes to judicial issues 
and reining in the Federal courts or expanding their authority of 
jurisdiction. And that is all that that Supreme Court case was doing. 
It was not addressing the issue of infringing upon the rights of other 
citizens by what is occurring here today by granting more authority to 
other States as far as voting is concerned.
  More to the point on this legislation. As I said before, I rise in 
strong opposition to this legislation because it is, A, 
unconstitutional, and, B, unfair. It violates the Constitution and the 
very fundamental intent of the Founding Fathers of this country and the 
Framers of the Constitution. It would give the District, which is by no 
definition a State, a vote in this House and simultaneously the 
citizens of another State two Representatives, which is unfair to the 
State of New Jersey and all States in this country.
  Furthermore, by allowing, unfairly, the District of Columbia to have 
their own Representative and also a Delegate, they will have unfair 
representation.
  Our Founding Fathers understood and deliberately set aside a non-
State section of land for our Federal Government and granted voting 
rights only, only, to State residents. They did this for a simple 
reason: They wanted to ensure that each State had equal representation, 
and they realized that putting the Federal Government in a State would 
have given that State unfair representation, an unfair advantage. H.R. 
1905 does not line up with the Founders' intent.
  If the supporters of H.R. 1905 wanted the people of D.C. to be 
represented in Congress, they simply could have solved that problem by 
retroceding, by giving back part of the District of Columbia to 
Maryland.
  There is precedent for this, as stated. In 1846, Congress took that 
perfectly legal step of returning present-day Arlington to the State of 
Virginia. Couldn't we pass similar legislation like that right now and 
solve this problem?
  Unfortunately, the majority, who claimed just a few months ago that 
they would have an open process for amendment legislation, has left us 
with only two choices, an unfair and unconstitutional choice before 
this House.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, we are pleased to have on our Judiciary 
Committee the gentleman from Georgia, the distinguished lawyer and 
judge, Hank Johnson, to whom I yield 2 minutes.
  Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the 
District of Columbia Voting Rights Act of 2007, which corrects a 200-
year-old oversight by restoring to the citizens of the District of 
Columbia the right to elect a Member of the House of Representatives 
who has the same voting rights as all other Members of the House of 
Representatives.
  Residents of the District of Columbia serve in the military. They are 
dying and being wounded on the streets of Iraq. They pay billions of 
dollars in Federal taxes each year and assume all of the 
responsibilities of United States citizenship. Yet they are denied the 
basic right of full representation in the United States House of 
Representatives.
  Now, a compromise has been reached by both sides of the aisle, but 
there are some who would deny the people of Washington, D.C., a right 
that they themselves enjoy.
  The District of Columbia was created to prevent any State from unduly 
influencing the operations of the Federal Government due to the Federal 
Government's being located within the confines of a particular State. 
However, there is simply no evidence that the Framers of the 
Constitution thought it was necessary to keep residents of this 
District from being represented in the United States House of 
Representatives by a voting Member.
  Now, there are those who would argue that Congress lacks the power to 
extend this right of full voter representation to the citizens of the 
District of Columbia. However, article I, section 8, clause 17 of the 
Constitution provides Congress with the legislative authority to give 
the District of Columbia true representation in Congress. I quote: The 
Congress shall have power ``to exercise exclusive Legislation in all 
Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding 10 miles square) . 
. .''
  So let us stand with the thousands who marched down Pennsylvania 
Avenue Monday for one thing, full representation by Members of the 
House of Representatives for the District of Columbia.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Gohmert), a member of the Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, the proponents of this bill in 1978 
believed that the way to allow the District of Columbia representation 
was to actually pass and ratify a constitutional amendment. That is 
what the proponents knew back then. That is what most of us, hopefully, 
still know today.
  Article I, section 2 of the Constitution addresses who will comprise 
the U.S. House of Representatives. As it says here, specifically, ``The 
House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every 
second year by the People of the several States . . . ''
  Now, anyone who believes it is fair, like the Founders of the country 
did,

[[Page 9393]]

to have taxation with representation should also know that we took an 
oath to support and defend this document. Words mean things. They had 
the debate at that time. Should we give the District of Columbia, this 
independent entity, a Representative? They said ``no.'' Alexander 
Hamilton lost the debate when they said ``no.''
  So if you want to fix it, as the people in 1978 did, as you do know, 
those in the House here, Mr. Speaker, you do it by making a 
constitutional amendment.
  I have previously pointed out that one of the arguments made by our 
country's founders as to why they did not allow the District of 
Columbia to have a U.S. Representative was that the Founders noted that 
Members of Congress and the Senate have an interest in the city's 
functioning properly. Demonizing, misquoting, belittling the messenger 
does not change the truth, the facts, or what the Constitution 
requires.

                              {time}  1315

  As I said during the previous debate, it is a legitimate position to 
assert that all people should be able to elect their Representative. 
That is why on Monday of this week I filed a bill that is the only 
constitutional manner of getting the District of Columbia a 
Representative without a constitutional amendment. My new bill cedes 
land from the District of Columbia on which Federal buildings do not 
currently exist to the State of Maryland, which follows the pattern 
that was set in 1846 when land was ceded back to Virginia. That allows 
the District of Columbia not only a vote for a Representative, but also 
a vote for two Senators. That is not even contemplated in this bill.
  In any event, the Constitution is clear. Let's follow it or amend it. 
The bill we are voting on today does not follow the Constitution, it 
does not amend the Constitution, and, therefore, it must be defeated 
here by those who wish to follow the admonition to support and defend 
the Constitution. Otherwise, it will be struck down by any court that 
seeks to follow the words of the Constitution.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 1 minute to the 
Delegate from the District of Columbia, Eleanor Holmes Norton.
  Ms. NORTON. It has been remarkable, in a debate where Republicans 
invoke democracy, to hear Republican after Republican come to the House 
floor and say that they want the District of Columbia ceded to 
Maryland, without indicating that the Maryland delegation has given 
permission to accept the District of Columbia. If you believe in 
democracy, I suggest you ask the State of Maryland before you cede back 
anything to that State.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure now to yield 3 minutes to 
the gentlelady from Houston, Texas, Sheila Jackson-Lee.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Let me thank the distinguished Speaker, the 
distinguished chairman of the full committee, and certainly my 
colleagues who are here, because I believe that there should be a sense 
of honesty and integrity that is attributed to all of my colleagues, 
despite their positions on this issue.
  I rise today, Mr. Chairman of the full committee, acknowledging that 
my full statement will be put into the Record. But I really want to 
engage in a dialogue and a discussion because I am grateful that this 
committee, looking at Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton's legislation 
and Congressman Davis' legislation was thoughtful as it relates to the 
Constitution. And that is what the American people ask us to do: they 
want us to be thoughtful as it relates to the Constitution; they want 
us to be fair.
  Many people have heard of this as the D.C. Voting bill, but they may 
not be aware of the provision that deals with Utah, people there who 
have not had an opportunity to cast their vote, one person-one vote. 
That is what this is all about. It is a simple question of allowing 
those who pay taxes, whose blood rains on the front lines around the 
world for our freedom, to have the constitutional privilege of voting.
  Now, you will hear those who oppose suggest that there is a provision 
in the Constitution that indicates the word ``States,'' and that voting 
is, if you will, attributable to the word ``States.'' We have already 
heard the historical perspective, you have already been told to ask the 
people of Maryland, but there is another constitutional provision. And 
so you have interpretations that will allow scholars to have a 
scholarly debate.
  The other constitutional provision indicates that this Congress does 
have the authority to provide, if you will, a balance of power, a sense 
of fairness to the nonvoting people of the District of Columbia.
  I would hope that we, who are constitutionally grounded, a democracy 
that has lasted now 400 years-plus, would err on the side of giving 
rights to people who are deserving of those rights, their birthright 
being that they are American citizens. That is why I come to the floor 
of the House to challenge and to chime these words: We all are created 
equal, with certain inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit 
of happiness. That is a declaration of independence, and the 
Constitution says we formed this body to create a more perfect Union. 
Can we be in a perfect Union if there are citizens of the United States 
who are not able to cast their vote? I ask my colleagues to consider 
that, and I ask us to support enthusiastically H.R. 1905, to err on the 
side of the birthright of American citizens and the right to vote.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1905, 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. Today, we vote to 
end 2 centuries of shame and correct an injustice to the citizens of 
the District of Columbia.
  H.R. 1905 permanently expands 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. 1905 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. 1905 is a weak 
foundation upon which to base the District's voting rights in the House 
because it is a statutory rather than 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 saves to buy a house even though she has enough 
money to rent an apartment.
  Mr. 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.
  Mr. 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.
  Mr. 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.
  Mr. 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

[[Page 9394]]

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.


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

  As Professor Dinh argued in his powerful testimony before the 
Judiciary Committee, Congress has ample constitutional authority to 
enact H.R. 1905 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 legislatipn, take the more modest step of providing 
citizens of the District with a voice in the House of Representativ. 
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. 1905 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 9 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 State-wide 
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 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 state-wide 
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 4 
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. 1905 is constitutionally 
unassailable. Granting voting rights to the citizens of the District of 
Columbia is a matter of simple justice. I know it 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 vote to join me in voting 
for H.R. 1905.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time is 
remaining on each side.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Both sides have 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.

[[Page 9395]]


  Mr. GOODLATTE. At this time, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Gohmert).
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I need to respond to my friend from the 
District of Columbia with regard to have I talked to the State of 
Maryland. All I can do is what we can do here, what we can do 
constitutionally. And I am shocked at the inference that Maryland 
thinks so little of the people of the District of Columbia that they 
wouldn't want them, but that is their call. This is something we can do 
constitutionally.
  And to my other good friend from Texas, who mentioned there is 
another provision, it is article I, section 8. And there is nothing in 
here that gives us the power to change the Constitution to revoke this 
word ``States.'' And if you give it that broad, sweeping definition 
that my friends across the aisle are trying to do, then what will end 
up happening is, you want to help the fighting people that have given 
their lives for us and others who continue fighting? This says we can 
give them their own representative. We can give the Pentagon a 
representative. We can give every fort and post and base in America 
their own representative. Let's don't go that broad.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to recognize a senior 
member of the Judiciary Committee, Maxine Waters of California, for 2 
minutes.
  Ms. WATERS. Mr. Speaker and Members, I rise in support of H.R. 1905, 
the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2007, and I am 
proud and pleased to do so.
  I was elected in 1991; and one of my colleagues, who was elected at 
the same time, Ms. Eleanor Holmes Norton, she has been in this battle 
ever since she has been here trying to educate this House and the 
Members of this Congress about the disenfranchisement of the people of 
the District of Columbia, and she has done a magnificent job of doing 
that.
  That brings us to the point that we are today. We have worked out an 
agreement. We have bipartisan support. We have a piece of legislation 
that makes good sense. It will give representation to the people who 
live and work in this District, people who pay taxes.
  When I rode in this morning, I rode in a taxicab with an elderly 
woman who has been driving a cab for 28 years. I struck up a 
conversation with her, and she told me that she had two sons in Iraq. I 
could not tell her about what we were doing on the floor today. I did 
not want to engage her in that conversation because I was too ashamed 
to even talk about the fact that she did not have representation, she 
did not have a voting representative because this body had not decided 
to use its power to give the vote to the people of the District of 
Columbia. But I am proud to stand here today because I think something 
wonderful is about to happen.
  No matter the distortions about the Constitution, no matter the 
misunderstanding that I am hearing from the opposite side of the aisle, 
we are about to embark on something that is historical, that is 
constitutional, and is the right thing to do. And I am so pleased and 
proud to be a part of it as I stand here, looking in the eyes of my 
friend, Eleanor Holmes Norton, where I will be casting my vote with her 
today to give voting rights to the people of this District.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Indiana (Mr. Pence).
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, did the gentleman from Indiana desire 2 
minutes from our side?
  Mr. PENCE. No. I thank the gentleman. I am pleased to take time from 
the minority side. I thank the chairman. But I also thank very deeply 
the gentleman from Virginia the courtesy of yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I do rise in support of H.R. 1905, the District of 
Columbia Voting Rights Act of 2007.
  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.
  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 commitment 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 
our system of government, Congress may only take action which is 
authorized by the written Constitution. I do believe in my heart that 
H.R. 1905 is a constitutional remedy to a historic wrong, and I am not 
alone in this thought.
  Judge Kenneth Starr, the 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 that they founded.'' None other than 
Justice Antonin Scalia observed in 1984 that the seat of government 
clause of the Constitution gives Congress extraordinary and plenary 
power over our Nation's Capital. Judge Starr observes: ``The logic of 
that case and that reasoning applies here.''
  Congress has used this power in the past. It was in a 1949 case that 
the Supreme Court upheld legislation that extended access to the 
Federal courts even though article III expressly limited jurisdiction 
to the courts to suits brought by citizens of several States. None of 
which argues for the District of Columbia ever to be granted the right 
to elect Members to the Senate. In a real sense, the House is 
derivative of the people, the Senate is derivative of the State.
  It is my privilege to stand today, albeit in opposition to some of my 
most cherished colleagues, and stand in support of the D.C. Voting 
Rights bill.
  Mr. CONYERS. I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Cummings).
  Mr. CUMMINGS. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that I wholeheartedly support H.R. 
1905, the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act.
  I echo the words of Mr. Pence, who just spoke. I think he said it 
quite precisely and concisely, the citizens of the District of Columbia 
deserve a full right to vote. This bill does not go as far as I would 
like for it to go; but at the same time, it is a step in the right 
direction.
  I applaud my colleague, Eleanor Holmes Norton, for tirelessly giving 
everything she has to make this happen. So this is a great day for her 
and a great day for our country and our Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1905, the District of 
Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2007, because the time is long past 
due for District of Columbia residents to gain the right to vote.
  It is very fitting that we are considering giving D.C. residents the 
right to vote this week. April 15th marked the 60th anniversary of 
Jackie Robinson's debut with the Brooklyn Dodgers as the first African-
American player in the Majors, and on Monday, D.C. residents celebrated 
Emancipation Day. In keeping with this line of great accomplishments, 
today we have the honor, the privilege, and the duty to correct one of 
this Nation's oldest violations of civil rights.
  District residents have been denied full representation in Congress 
for over 200 years. This disenfranchisement impacts more than 500,000 
people who live in the District, pay federal taxes, and fight for their 
country in war. Further, it disproportionately impacts the African 
American community, which makes up fifty-seven percent of the 
population in the District. No other state in the union has a larger 
percentage of Black residents.
  However, this is an issue that surpasses race. It is about basic 
equality. I find it ironic that we are spending billions of dollars to 
export democracy, when our fellow American citizens are denied the very 
cornerstone of democracy, the right to vote. The residents of the 
District of Columbia demand and deserve the right to fully participate 
in our democracy.
  Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton has shown great resolve in her 
tireless efforts

[[Page 9396]]

to secure full voting rights for her constituents. And Oversight and 
Government Reform Committee Ranking Member Tom Davis has been a great 
ally in this cause, both now and when the Republicans were in the 
Majority.
  The bill includes a number of important provisions.
  It will increase the size of the House by two seats, from 435 to 437 
seats. One of the seats will go to the District of Columbia and the 
other seat will go to 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.
  Importantly, the bill contains a non-severability clause, providing 
that if a court holds a section of this bill invalid or unenforceable, 
all other sections will be invalid or unenforceable.
  Members of the Oversight and Government Reform Committee recognize 
the compelling need for granting full representation to the citizens of 
the District of Columbia. I hope that all of our colleagues in the 
House will join us, and vote in favor of H.R. 1905, the District of 
Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2007.
  To be sure, while I support this bill, I do not think it goes far 
enough. However, this compromise legislation is a step in the right 
direction--a step towards granting residents of the District of 
Columbia the ability to fully express their democratic right to vote. 
This is a historic moment, and I would urge all of my colleagues to be 
on the right side of history by voting in favor of this bill.
  Again, I would like to express my appreciation to Congresswoman 
Norton, Ranking Member Davis, and Chairman Waxman, and the House 
Leadership for their dedication in bringing this vitally important 
legislation to the floor and for providing us with the opportunity to 
correct years of disenfranchisement.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a 
unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this 
bill, the D.C. Voting Rights Act.
  For too long, the residents of our Nation's Capital have been without 
a full voice in Congress.
  The District of Columbia is home to over 570,000 residents. It has a 
larger population than Wyoming, which is represented by an at-large 
member in the House and two Senators.
  The men and women of the District of Columbia pay their taxes, both 
to the Federal Government and the District. They salute the American 
flag at Nationals, Wizards, Caps and Redskins games. And they serve or 
have served in the Armed Forces. D.C. is home to over 44,000 veterans. 
In Iraq and Afghanistan, four brave men have made the ultimate 
sacrifice for their country.
  Yet despite being an integral part of the fabric of our Nation, D.C. 
continues to be denied a vote in Congress.
  Today we are considering compromise, bipartisan legislation 
coauthored by my friends and colleagues Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton 
and Representative Tom Davis. From his position on the Government 
Oversight Committee Congressman Davis has spent considerable time and 
attention on issues affecting the District. And there is no stronger 
advocate for her constituents than the gentlewoman from D.C.
  I compliment the bill's sponsors for crafting a thoughtful approach 
and a clever compromise that grants Utah an at-large representative to 
balance any potential partisan division. It keeps this proposal 
bipartisan and improves its prospects for favorable Senate action. I 
hope the White House will rethink its current concerns and join our 
bipartisan coalition to affirm the District's right to a vote.
  Some who oppose this legislation have stated that it raises 
constitutional concerns. But, as was stated in a recent op-ed by the 
Republican D.C. Councilwoman Carol Schwartz, no less conservative 
scholars than former solicitor general Kenneth Starr, former chief 
judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit Patricia Wald 
and Georgetown Law Professor and author of the USA Patriot Act Viet 
Dihn have stated that giving the District a vote is in fact, 
constitutional.
  Mr. Speaker, the citizens of Washington, DC are as much red-blooded 
Americans as anybody living in the 50 States.
  They deserve to have their voices heard in the halls of Congress, 
they deserve a representative who can vote on their behalf as this body 
debates matters directly affecting their country and therefore, they 
deserve to have this legislation passed today.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Virginia 
for his leadership on this and for yielding.
  I want to stipulate at the beginning of this statement that I support 
enfranchisement, strongly support enfranchisement for the citizens of 
the District of Columbia. However, the oath that I take on the first 
day of our session stipulates that I uphold and defend the Constitution 
of the United States, and I believe firmly that the Constitution will 
not allow this. There is a process that we will go through for that, 
and I appreciate it.
  This has been a good debate. It has been an interesting debate. I 
want to point out a section of the Constitution that isn't cited as 
often as the ones that we have heard, and that is article I, section 2, 
the second paragraph, which states, ``No person shall be a 
Representative who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that 
State in which he shall be chosen.''
  If there was ever a more clear statement in the Constitution, I don't 
know what that is.
  But I also want to talk about this sense of one person-one vote. I am 
very troubled by what we hear from our friends on the other side of the 
aisle that this upholds one person-one vote, because I would suggest to 
you, reading the bill and understanding what it does in both the Utah 
situation and in the District of Columbia, that it provides for more 
than one person and one vote.
  In the Utah instance, for example, it provides that the State of Utah 
gets one extra Representative, which means that the individuals in Utah 
vote for two people, which means they have more authority than citizens 
in my district and other districts who aren't in Utah. And in the 
District of Columbia, this bill would provide for a Representative in 
the House of Representatives, but also a Delegate. Also a Delegate. So 
citizens in the District of Columbia would have representation from two 
different individuals in the House and in the Committee of the Whole.
  So I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, as Mr. Rodino, the Democrat Chair of 
the Judiciary Committee stated in the 95th Congress, ``If the citizens 
of the District are to have voting representation in the Congress, a 
constitutional amendment is necessary, is essential. Statutory action 
alone will not suffice.''
  So I would ask my friends on the other side of the aisle, what 
changed? What changed? Was Mr. Rodino wrong? I think not. I think not. 
I think there is a statutory way to do it, and that is through 
retrocession. I think there is a constitutional way to do it, by 
amending the Constitution.
  I would suggest to my friends on both sides that H.R. 1905 does 
neither of those and violates sincerely the principle of one-person, 
one-vote.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I yield to the gentleman from Maryland.
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's observation, but 
as you know, I schedule legislation for the floor in my capacity as the 
majority leader.
  May I ask my friend, if this came to the floor as a constitutional 
amendment, would my friend be supportive of that constitutional 
amendment?
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I appreciate 
my colleague's question, but I think that is not the appropriate way to 
go.
  However, I strongly support retrocession to the State of Maryland, 
because I believe strongly in the enfranchisement of the citizens of 
the District of Columbia.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Wynn) for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request.
  Mr. WYNN. I would like to thank the distinguished chairman.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of D.C. voting rights on behalf of the 
Fourth Congressional District of Maryland, suburban neighbors of the 
citizens of the District of Columbia, out in Prince George's and 
Montgomery Counties. We fully and wholeheartedly support full D.C. 
voting rights.

[[Page 9397]]


  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished 
majority leader, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, this legislation is a critical step in 
support of democracy. This legislation is important legislation. The 
District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act is designed to do one 
thing, to address and rectify the unjustified disenfranchisement of 
more than 500,000 citizens of our country, whose only distinction 
between any of us who sit on this floor, other than the distinguished 
representative of the District of Columbia, Eleanor Holmes Norton, is 
that they live in a few square miles designated by their country, 
gifted by the State of Maryland, as our Nation's capital.
  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. Let me speak briefly of that, because although I have not 
heard all of the debate, I am sure the Constitution has been referenced 
that Representatives shall represent citizens of the several States.
  Let there be no mistake, every resident of the District of Columbia 
is a successor to citizens of the several States in 1800. I don't mean 
that every one of them is a direct descendant, obviously, but 
politically they were part of the several States, unlike all four 
others of the representatives who cannot vote. They are distinguished 
and discrete in that regard. That, I suggest to you, is wrong.
  It is wrong as a matter of principle because District citizens pay 
Federal taxes, sit on juries, serve in our Armed Forces and give their 
lives for their country, as do other Americans who enjoy full 
representation in this body. It is wrong politically because District 
citizens since 1801 have effectively been a ward of Congress. Very 
frankly, I don't think the citizens of Maryland intended that or the 
citizens of any other State of the Union when they acquired the 
District of Columbia.
  And it is wrong morally, because the United States of America, which 
has the freest, truest form of representative government perhaps in 
human history, deprives only one portion of its citizens, a small 
portion, 500,000 out of 300 million, deprives a small portion of its 
citizens of its very own capital a voice in the national legislature.
  Let me add, the United States of America is the only representative 
democracy that does not afford the citizens of its capital voting 
representation. Thus, this is not only a national disgrace, but an 
international embarrassment, and the American people and Members here 
on both sides of the aisle recognize this injustice and want to remedy 
it. That is what this legislation is about.
  In fact, 82 percent of respondents in a recent national poll 
indicated that residents of the District of Columbia should have 
representatives that can vote in the Congress. And I should note that 
legislation virtually identical to this bill was reported out of the 
Republican-controlled Government Reform Committee in the last Congress 
when the committee was chaired by Mr. Davis of Virginia, who is a 
cosponsor of this legislation. Mr. Jack Kemp, a former colleague of 
ours, a leader in this Congress, a vice presidential nominee of the 
Republican Party, has strongly urged the passage of this piece of 
legislation.
  The truth is, 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 of the United States to correct this 
injustice. The authority I refer to, of course, is article I, section 8 
of the Constitution, the so-called seat of government clause, under 
which, and I quote, ``The Congress shall have power to exercise 
exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over the District of 
Columbia.''
  Now, I asked my friend, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price) who 
talked about needing to do this through a constitutional amendment, I 
said, would you support a constitutional amendment? He said ``no''; his 
view was, only if the District of Columbia were given back to Maryland 
and the District of Columbia residents were told, you are no longer 
residents of the District of Columbia, you are residents of Maryland.
  I suggest if you ask the residents of Virginia or Delaware or 
Pennsylvania, which are contiguous States to our beloved State of 
Maryland, they would say, thank you, but no thanks. We like being 
Pennsylvanians or Delawarians or Virginians.
  The District of Columbia residents are proud of their jurisdiction. 
They are proud of being citizens of the District of Columbia. What they 
want to have is full democratic representation.
  Plain and simple, this sweeping language gives Congress extraordinary 
and plenary power over our Nation's capital city, including the 
authority to adopt legislation to enfranchise the District's 550,000 
residents with a full vote in the House of Representatives.
  I am not alone in my view of this article. Twenty-five legal scholars 
from law schools, and I am sure this has already been discussed by our 
distinguished chairman and the extraordinarily able Representative and 
outstanding lawyer and law professor who represents the District of 
Columbia, my good friend Eleanor Holmes Norton, have already pointed 
this out.
  Even Kenneth Starr, a distinguished lawyer, I have disagreed with him 
pretty strongly on some things, but the former conservative jurist and 
current dean of Pepperdine Law School, has concluded that Congress has 
the authority under article I, section 8, to do this.
  Now, do I delude myself that this is not going to be brought before a 
district court or a circuit court or the Supreme Court? No, I do not. 
That is appropriate. That is available to residents. They can do that, 
and the court will ultimately have to rule. However, this is an 
opportunity for us on this floor to make a stand for democracy, to 
extend to these 550,000 people the civility and respect we would expect 
for ourselves.
  That Congress has for two centuries failed to use its authority to 
correct an injustice is no reason to persist in that failure today. It 
is always timely to do the right thing.
  This institution exists, after all, to eliminate injustice and to 
make our Nation ``a more perfect Union.'' How much more perfect can we 
make the Union than to include all of our people as full citizens 
within that Union?
  We, the Members of this House, must never, never be seduced into 
thinking there is no such thing as a settled injustice within our 
authority but beyond our duty to correct. For an injustice planted two 
centuries ago is just as harmful to what America aspires to be today as 
one planted last year or last week.
  Mr. Chairman, as Frederick Douglass, who spent his final years just a 
few blocks from where I stand today, said, ``Man's greatness consists 
in his ability to do and the proper application of his powers to things 
needed to be done.''
  We need to make the citizens of this Nation's capital full citizens 
of the United States of America.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes, and I 
would like to pose a couple of questions to the distinguished majority 
leader.
  I have listened to his historical discourse. As the gentleman knows, 
Alexander Hamilton, one of our Founding Fathers, offered an amendment 
during the writing of our Constitution that would have provided voting 
rights to the citizens of the District of Columbia. It was defeated and 
not included in our Constitution. At that time, both portions of 
Maryland and portions of Virginia were included in a 100-square-mile 
area, and in 1846, the portion that had come from Virginia was ceded 
back to Virginia.
  I wonder if the gentleman, having posed the question about the 
constitutional amendment, would respond to the question, if this is 
ruled unconstitutional, as many of us think it is, would the gentleman 
bring to the floor legislation that would do something similar for the 
portions of the District of Columbia, excepting key government 
buildings, so that the citizens would have the opportunity to vote with 
the citizens of his State, Maryland, for whom he can speak with some 
regard?

[[Page 9398]]


  Mr. HOYER. I will certainly seek to enfranchise the citizens on a 
continuing basis until that is accomplished.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. I would ask the gentleman further, if when the court, 
and I hope the court does, determines that this is unconstitutional, if 
in getting to that process, recognizing there are going to be lots of 
uncertainties if this bill were passed and signed into law, both for 
citizens of Utah, for the District of Columbia and for the operation of 
the Congress as a whole, if he would join with us in supporting an 
expedited judicial review to receive a prompt determination of the 
constitutionality of this legislation?
  Mr. HOYER. I believe this will be tested, as I said before. Many on 
your side of the aisle have indicated that. If that is the case, I 
would hope it would be expedited.
  I believe this is constitutional, and I certainly think, based upon 
that conviction, I would hope the court would sustain that view.

                              {time}  1345

  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to my colleague from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, this is a serious matter. It is my 
understanding, I am now told, I have not seen your motion to recommit; 
I have no intention of supporting your motion to recommit.
  This bill has a long way to go. I hope it passes this House, I hope 
it passes the Senate, I hope it passes the conference, and I hope the 
President signs it.
  My response to you was a fair response. But the question was to get 
me on the record on your motion, apparently, and I will tell my friend 
from Virginia, who disagrees with my other friend from Virginia, Mr. 
Davis, on this issue, that I have every intention of opposing the 
motion to recommit.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds to respond.
  I would say, with due respect to the majority leader, the motion to 
recommit was offered as an amendment. No amendments were made in order, 
so it is our only recourse to offer it in those circumstances. I take 
the gentleman's statement as his word that he is going to oppose it for 
valid reasons, but I frankly see no valid reasons why we should not 
have expedited review of this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. 
Eddie Bernice Johnson) for a unanimous consent request.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of 
H.R. 1905.
  I rise today in support of H.R. 1905, the District of Columbia House 
Voting Rights Act of 2007. I congratulate my colleagues for their 
courage and veracity to consider this measure and support its passage 
after 231 years of injustice. Since the birth of our Nation the 
residents of the District of Columbia have been deprived of their 
fundamental Federal rights, despite paying their Federal taxes.
  I would like to thank Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton from the 
District of Columbia for her leadership and tenacity. Since elected to 
Congress in 1996, Congresswoman Norton has consistently fought for 
voting representation in the United States Congress.
  Our democracy and our values as Americans are contingent upon the 
idea that every person should have the right to vote and have that vote 
counted. The citizens of the District of Columbia have not been able to 
fully realize this right. While they are able to vote in presidential 
election yet their voice in the body of the House of Representatives 
has too often been silenced. This is in direct opposition of the values 
of equality and opportunity that we hold so dearly as American 
citizens.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to give the District of Columbia 
residents a vote in Congress. I hope we could finally grant the 
residents of the District of Columbia the voice that they deserve.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlelady from Florida (Ms. 
Corrine Brown) for a unanimous consent request.
  Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise to indicate that I 
will be voting ``yes'' on H.R. 1905 and that I have supported it for 15 
years, and I am very happy to be supporting the doing away with the 
disenfranchisement of the people of the District of Columbia.
  I want to thank the gentlelady from the District of Columbia, Ms. 
Norton, Chairman Conyers, and the gentleman from Virginia Mr. Davis for 
working very hard to bring the vote to the residents of the District of 
Columbia.
  I rise today in support of this legislation.
  This country's history is replete with certain groups being denied 
the right to vote.
  Being from Florida, I understand about disenfranchisement. It is 
something I fight against and oppose every day. Disenfranchisement did 
not end with the passage of the Voting Rights Act, and it will not end 
when the residents of the District of Columbia finally get the right to 
vote. It is a continual fight, needing eternal vigilance to protect.
  This bill will go a long way in righting the wrongs that have been 
perpetuated on the American people for too long.
  This bill ends the 206-year-old injustice of ``taxation without 
representation'' for over a half a million District residents. 
Residents of the District of Columbia serve in the military, pay 
billions of dollars in Federal taxes each year, serve on juries, and 
assume other responsibilities of U.S. citizenship. And yet, for over 
200 years, they have been denied full voting representation in the 
Congress. The United States is the only democracy in the world that 
deprives the residents of its capital city full voting representation 
in the national legislature. Essentially, residents of every State have 
a vote regarding the laws that govern the District, while those living 
in the District itself do not.
  Support the right to vote. Support voting rights for the residents of 
the District of Columbia. Support H.R. 1905.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield now to a member of the Judiciary 
Committee, Mr. Steve Cohen of Tennessee, for 30 seconds.
  Mr. COHEN. Mr. Speaker, we had distinguished speakers on both sides 
of this issue argue the constitutionality in the Judiciary Committee, 
both conservative and liberal members on each side, and they both gave 
arguments it was constitutional.
  In baseball, the tie goes to the runner, and it goes to the runner 
because the runner is trying to make an advancement, trying to score, 
trying to make progress. And I would submit, Mr. Speaker, that this is 
progress. This is an advancement to allow the enfranchisement of these 
people who have been denied the vote and their ancestors for many 
years. The tie should go to the runner, we should pass this bill, and I 
am proud to vote for it today.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Poe).
  Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity and the time to 
make some brief comments on this legislation.
  The debate has been, as said previously, lively and very good. And it 
is good that we are actually having a bill presented to this Congress 
where the issue is whether it is constitutional or not. Too often this 
House seems to run through legislation. A lot is mentioned, a lot is 
said on this House floor, but the issue of whether it stands muster 
with our Constitution is not said.
  For the last 30 years, I have been in the legal profession, 8 years 
as a trial lawyer and 22 years as a trial judge in the State of Texas. 
And the issue always in court, especially in criminal cases, is: Is it 
constitutional what occurs in that courtroom? That is always the 
question of the day. And I think that is the question of today as well.
  I respect the remarks of the majority leader on his comments about 
how important it is for the folks in Washington, D.C. to have the right 
to vote for a Member of Congress. I couldn't agree with him more. It is 
the moral decision as well as an appropriate decision for us to make, 
at some time.
  But under this current piece of legislation, it is not 
constitutional, unless we want to take the word ``state'' in the U.S. 
Constitution and change it to something else. Now, that does happen 
with the Supreme Court from time to time; they give a new definition to 
the word. I don't know if they will give a new definition to the word 
``state'' and apply it to the State of D.C. or not. We shall see, 
probably, if this legislation passes.
  But I think the better avenue would be to file a constitutional 
amendment.

[[Page 9399]]

No question about it. A constitutional amendment cannot be ruled 
unconstitutional even by our Supreme Court. And I think that is the 
better way to proceed. I think this piece of legislation for the 
reasons stated by many people is unconstitutional and it should not 
pass.
  Let's do it the right way, the proper way, and of course the moral 
way: file a constitutional amendment.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia has 30 seconds 
remaining; the gentleman from Michigan has 6\3/4\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I now yield 1 minute to Danny Davis, the 
distinguished Member of Congress from Illinois.
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the 
District of Columbia's Voting Rights Act. As chairman of the 
Subcommittee on the Federal Workforce Postal and the District of 
Columbia, I have listened closely to the debate, and I am firmly and 
thoroughly convinced that every procedural concern has been met, every 
rationalization has been met with logic, and every constitutional 
question has withstood its challenges.
  The only question before us now is: If not now, then when? If not us, 
then who?
  The real deal is that the people of the District of Columbia have 
waited far too long. Justice delayed is justice denied. We must correct 
this injustice and do it today. I urge passage of this legislation.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, it is now time for us to hear the Delegate 
from the District of Columbia. I am honored to yield to Eleanor Holmes 
Norton 5 minutes.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman for 
yielding and for his ceaseless fight for the District's rights. During 
the rule, I thanked the many others who are responsible for this 
historic day.
  Today's vote will allow the House to erase many deep historic wrongs 
from the Nation's conscience. As the House votes, District's residents 
are serving in Iraq and Afghanistan in a shooting war, as they have in 
every war, including the war that established our Republic.
  Andy Shallal, a District resident, said it best: ``People like me of 
Iraqi ancestry and even my son, who was born in the United States, are 
entitled to vote in Iraq elections due in large part to the service of 
the citizens of the District of Columbia and other Americans who have 
fought and died in Iraq.''
  And today's vote will erase the slander that the Founders of our 
country who staged the revolution for representation would then deny it 
to the residents of their own capital.
  Professor Viet Dinh, President Bush's former point man on 
constitutional matters, has wiped away the major argument that because 
the District is not a State its American citizens cannot vote in the 
people's House, by detailing the many ways in which ``since 1805 the 
Supreme Court has recognized that Congress has the authority to treat 
the District as a State, and Congress has repeatedly exercised that 
authority.'' My favorite is the sixteenth amendment, which requires 
only that citizens of States pay Federal income taxes. Why then have 
District residents continuously been taxed without representation?
  And today's vote will relieve the House of the shameful racial burden 
that has been at the core of the denial of the rights of D.C. citizens. 
Congress required the same racial segregation here as in the Southern 
States, in schools and in public accommodations, until the 1954 Brown 
decision. As one Southern Senator put it: ``The Negroes flocked in, and 
there was only one way out, and that was to deny suffrage entirely to 
every human being in the district.''
  Former Republican Senator Edward Brooke, a native Washingtonian and 
the Nation's first popularly elected black Senator, wrote: ``The 
experience of living in a segregated city and of serving in our 
segregated Army perhaps explains why my party's work on the Voting 
Rights Act reauthorization last year and on the pending D.C. House 
Voting Rights Act has been so important to me personally. The irony, of 
course, is that I had to leave my hometown to get representation in 
Congress and to become a Member.''
  Today, I ask the House to abolish that irony and the tragedy for the 
many who have come to the Nation's Capital seeking freedom for 206 
years, among them my great grandfather, Richard Holmes, a slave who ran 
away from a Virginia plantation in the 1850s and settled our family 
here. I appeal to your conscience and ask for your vote so that finally 
there also will be a vote for your fellow Americans here who have paid 
for this precious right many times over in blood and in treasure.
  I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time 
and simply say that I think this has been an excellent debate. I think 
there is good faith on both sides. But I do believe very, very 
strongly, as do I think many, many other people, that this is the wrong 
way to go about correcting the lack of a vote for residents of the 
District of Columbia, which the other side has clearly pointed out 
should be corrected. But there are correct ways to do it. An amendment 
to the United States Constitution, what Virginia did with recession of 
the land to Maryland and allowing the citizens to vote in Maryland are 
both good solutions.
  We should defeat this ill-conceived and unconstitutional legislation 
because the plain meaning of the Constitution, the words of the 
Constitution, cannot be altered by this House. And if we start doing 
that, we are indeed betraying our oaths. Defeat this legislation and do 
it right.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time 
remaining on our side.
  I begin by commending my colleagues in the Congress on the debate 
that has occurred today. It has been civil, it has been honest, and the 
disagreements, both constitutionally and otherwise, have been very 
clearly spread upon the record.
  And why is that so? Well, because we had the same debate 27 days ago. 
That is why. We have all been through this for every argument, for 
every constitutional expert opinion that is regularly volunteered.
  And, look, I have articulated my belief that a measure that we are 
debating is unconstitutional as frequently as anybody on the other 
side. I don't know what our collective batting averages of being 
accurate are, but that is for the courts to decide, and I think that we 
all agree to that.
  The District of Columbia residents want no more than what the 
Founding Fathers wanted. And, by the way, for those who wonder why we 
didn't make them a State right off the bat, at that time there may have 
been 150 people living in this swampy area that is now known as D.C. We 
didn't have anybody to make citizens.
  So join me, join us in this historic moment and pass the bill. It is 
high time.
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, our country, our Declaration of 
Independence, and our Constitution are all based on a promise. The 
promise in the Declaration of Independence is that taxation without 
representation was, and is, wrong. The promise in our Constitution is 
that all citizens of this country have ``certain inalienable rights'' 
and it is the job of Congress to secure those inalienable rights. H.R. 
1905, the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act, would secure 
those rights for the hard working, tax paying citizens who, merely 
because they live in the Nation's Capital, do not have a voting 
representative in the U.S. Congress.
  We enjoy many rights as Americans. The right to vote and the right to 
equal representation is perhaps the most sovereign right that we as 
Americans have. In my own personal history as an activist, I was an 
active and aggressive participant to secure these rights for all 
Americans. Indeed, some of our colleagues in Congress today were jailed 
and beaten to protect these civil freedoms. Unfortunately, too many 
died for this cause. The sacrifices of these individuals and 
organizations, along with the basic, essential sense of freedom and 
justice, is a clarion call and underscores our obligation to the more 
than 600,000 citizens of Washington, DC who pay some of the highest 
taxes in the Nation, but do not have a vote on those taxes; who have 
served and died in every war our country has fought, but do not

[[Page 9400]]

have a vote to authorize a war; and who, in 2007, still do not have a 
voting representative in the U.S. Congress.
  H.R. 1905, the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act, will not 
only add full and unfettered voting power for the Representative from 
the District of Columbia, it also adds a new Congressional District in 
Utah. This bill, the manifestation of hard, tough, bipartisan 
negotiations, finally provides fairness and justice that has been 
denied for more than two centuries to the citizens of Washington, DC. 
For more than two centuries and a half, while our country has made 
democracy our global mantra, citizens in the Nation's Capital have not 
had a voice. For more than two centuries and a half, citizens in the 
Nation's Capital have been muted and marginalized. The District of 
Columbia Voting Rights Act is a step in the right direction, empowers 
the citizens of Washington, DC, and finally allows for the citizens of 
Washington, DC to fully embrace and enjoy the fruit of their labor, 
taxes, and diligence to our country.
  I am pleased that the wisdom of 240 of my colleagues prevailed in 
this vote, and I look forward, like the vast majority of my colleagues, 
to quick action in the Senate and to President Bush signing this bill 
into law as soon as possible. I applaud the work of Congresswoman 
Eleanor Holmes Norton, Congressman Tom Davis, and the collective bi-
partisan effort to preserve the principle of fair, equal 
representation.
  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I once again rise in strong support of 
H.R. 1905, legislation which will enable the residents of the District 
of Columbia to secure full voting rights in the House of 
Representatives. I applaud my friend and colleague, the gentle lady 
from the District for her strong and persistent advocacy and leadership 
on this issue which is so important to her constituents.
  Mr. Speaker, we Democrats have long been committed to providing full 
voting rights to the residents of the District, and I am proud to stand 
here as a Democrat speaking out for this right as well. But, I would 
also like to acknowledge that on this issue there has been strong 
support across the aisle.
  Our colleague, former Government Reform Committee Chairman Tom Davis, 
worked with Congresswoman Norton to develop bipartisan agreement on 
legislation to give one voting representative to the mainly Democratic 
District of Columbia, and another to the largely Republican State of 
Utah. This effort led to the introduction of the District of Columbia 
Fair and Equal House Voting Rights Act, last year and the 
reintroduction of this bill in this Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, as a Delegate in the House also without a vote, I must 
acknowledge the fact that my constituents, and indeed the constituents 
of our colleagues from Guam, American Samoa and Puerto Rico, also would 
want their representative to have a full vote in the House as well. We 
recognize and acknowledge, as do the constitutional scholars who 
testified in support of the DC Voting Rights Act, that the Framers of 
the Constitution never intended to deny voting representation to 
citizens of the Nation's Capital. Similar, we also know that just as it 
is wrong to disenfranchise the residents of the District it is equally 
wrong to disenfranchise my constituents and the residents of the other 
territories.
  However, our time for this has not yet come. But the time for the 
citizens of the District of Columbia has come and is very long overdue. 
The residents of the District have labored under this undemocratic 
status and have been silenced for more than 200 years. That is 200 
years of justice delayed and justice denied.
  Presidents as far back as Andrew Jackson have advocated for full 
representation in Congress for the District, and much later, President 
Richard Nixon in a special message to the Congress on the District of 
Columbia in 1969 said, ``It should offend the democratic sense of the 
Nation that the 850,000 residents of its capital, comprising a 
population larger than 11 of its States, have no voice in Congress.'' 
As such, the District expends billions of dollars annually to support 
not only its own residents but the hundreds of thousands of daily 
commuters who work in District of Columbia but live in the bordering 
states. The District of Columbia's resources and infrastructure are 
burdened on a daily basis with no financial assistance from the 
bordering states that benefit from these services. For all intent and 
purposes, the District of Columbia is treated as a state.
  Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the day when all citizens under the 
American flag will enjoy the democratic right of full representation in 
their national assembly as well as vote for our President and 
Commander-in-Chief. Until that day, I look forward to soon witnessing 
the day when residents of the District of Columbia, residents of the 
capital of our Nation, finally receive fair and equal voting rights in 
the House, the day that they will finally have justice.
  I urge my colleagues to support the District of Columbia Equal House 
Voting Rights Act of 2007 and end taxation without representation for 
our fellow citizens in the District of Columbia.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, today we are considering a bill that will 
help bring democracy to the District of Columbia. H.R. 1905, 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. District 
residents have fought in every war our Nation has faced yet get no vote 
in the House of Representatives. This bill will help right this 
longstanding injustice.
  There have been two champions of this legislation who deserve 
recognition. Congresswoman Norton has worked tirelessly on behalf of 
her constituents to forge a compromise that has bipartisan support. 
Representative Tom Davis, the Ranking Minority Member of the Oversight 
and Government Reform Committee, has led the charge for voting rights 
for the District.
  The District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act includes a number of 
important provisions. It will increase the size of the House by two 
seats. One seat will go to the District of Columbia and the other to 
Utah, the next state in line to get a congressional seat. The bill also 
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 after the apportionment following the 
2010 census.
  H.R. 1905 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 part of this bill can have legal 
effect unless the entire bill does. 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. 1905 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. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I am a cosponsor of this 
legislation and I urge its approval.
  The bill will provide residents of the District of Columbia (DC) with 
full representation in the U.S. House of Representatives by permanently 
expanding the House from 435 to 437 seats, with one of the new seats 
allocated to DC and the other to the State next entitled to increase 
its congressional representation. Based on the 2000 Census, Utah is the 
State next entitled to increase its congressional representation, so 
Colorado's western neighbors will gain that seat.
  As we all know, Mr. Speaker, the Constitution authorizes Congress to 
``exercise exclusive jurisdiction in all cases whatsoever'' over the 
seat of government--that is, the area ceded to the Federal Government 
and now known as the District of Columbia. But I think residents of DC 
should be able to govern themselves--like residents of Colorado--to the 
maximum extent consistent with allowing the Federal Government to 
operate. And the fact is that right now more than half a million people 
living in DC lack an essential element of self-government--full 
representation in the House of Representatives. So, while residents of 
Colorado and every other State have a vote regarding the laws that 
govern DC, the American citizens living there do not.
  Interestingly, this has not always been the case. The decision to 
locate the ``seat of government'' on the Potomac was made by the First 
Congress through enactment of the Residence Act. And for a decade--from 
1790 to 1800--District residents were able to vote in Congressional 
elections in Maryland and Virginia, even though they were not citizens 
of those states, because of Congressional action recognizing and 
ratifying the ceding states' laws as the applicable law for the now-
federal territory until further legislation.
  However, in 1800 Congress passed a different law for DC, and since 
then DC residents have been denied voting representation in Congress--
the very entity that has ultimate authority over all aspects of the 
city's legislative, executive, and judicial functions. And as early as 
1801, the citizens of Alexandria petitioned Congress to create a 
functioning DC municipal government and restore its residents' 
representation in the House of Representatives. Over the years Congress 
did act to create a DC municipal government, but its residents remain 
without voting representation in Congress. This bill would remedy that.

[[Page 9401]]

  Some of the bill's opponents argue that it is not constitutional 
because representation in Congress is reserved for Americans who live 
in one of the 50 States. I am not a lawyer, and do not claim to be a 
constitutional expert. But after careful review of the matter, 
including the opinions of people who unquestionably are experts, I am 
not convinced the opponents are right on that point.
  As I said, the Constitution gives Congress very broad power to 
legislate regarding the District of Columbia. And, as noted in the 
Judiciary Committee's report on this bill, many Constitutional experts 
say that this power includes the power to restore to DC residents the 
right to vote for a Member of the House of Representatives that existed 
from 1790 until 1800.
  In short, their view is that a right given by Act of Congress in 
1790, then removed by another Act of Congress in 1800, can be restored 
by a third Act of Congress in 2007. I find that persuasive, and so I 
will vote for this bill even though it is likely that this 
interpretation of Congressional authority will be tested in the courts.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the 
District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act.
  For too long, the residents of our Nation's Capital have been without 
a full voice in Congress.
  The District of Columbia is home to over 570,000 residents. It has a 
larger population than Wyoming, which is represented by an at-large 
member in the House and two Senators.
  The men and women of the District of Columbia pay their taxes, both 
to the Federal Government and the District. They salute the American 
flag at Nationals, Wizards, Caps and Redskins games. And they serve or 
have served in the Armed Forces. DC is home to over 44,000 veterans. In 
Iraq and Afghanistan, four brave men have made the ultimate sacrifice 
for their country.
  Yet despite being an integral part of the fabric of our Nation, DC 
continues to be denied a vote in Congress.
  Today we are considering compromise, partisan legislation coauthored 
by my friends and colleagues Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton and 
Representative Tom Davis. From his position on the Government Oversight 
Committee Congressman Davis has spent considerable time and attention 
on issues affecting the District. And there is no stronger advocate for 
her constituents than the gentlewoman from DC.
  I compliment the bill's sponsors for crafting a thoughtful approach 
and a clever compromise that grants Utah an at large representative to 
balance any potential partisan division. It keeps this proposal 
bipartisan and improves its prospects for favorable Senate action. I 
hope the White House will rethink its current concerns and join our 
bipartisan coalition to affirm the District's right to vote.
  Some who oppose this legislation have stated that it raises 
constitutional concerns. But, as was stated in a recent oped by the 
Republican DC Councilwoman Carol Schwartz, no less conservative 
scholars than former solicitor general Kenneth Starr, former chief 
judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit Patricia Wald and 
Georgetown Law Professor and author of the USA PATRIOT Act Viet Dinh 
have stated that giving the District a vote is in fact, constitutional.
   Mr. Speaker, the citizens of Washington, DC are as much red-blooded 
Americans as anybody living in the 50 states.
  They deserve to have their voices heard in the halls of Congress, 
they deserve a representative who can vote on their behalf as this body 
debates matters directly affecting their country and therefore, they 
deserve to have this legislation passed today.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, as a longtime supporter of the District of 
Columbia House Voting Rights Act, 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. 1905 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.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge the support of this important and historic 
legislation.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to support this important 
bill--the DC Voting Rights Act.
  It is long past time to pass this legislation. It is not a question 
of politics or political advantage, it is a question of civil rights--
it is a question of whether we believe that those people who live in 
the city that houses our Democratic institutions, who often work in the 
Federal government, deserve equal representation in our legislative 
body.
  There is simply no excuse to deny the hundreds of thousands of 
residents of our Capital City the right to equal representation in the 
United States Congress. They are citizens in every way. They pay the 
same federal taxes as anyone else, can serve in the armed forces, and 
are subject to the same laws of the land. 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 or representing the district right next to 
Washington, DC, and it is simply wrong that when you cross the border 
from my district into Washington, DC, you go from a district where you 
have voting representation to one where you do not.
  Mr. Speaker, we have before us a bipartisan compromise that extends 
full voting rights to our neighbors here in the District. I urge my 
colleagues to support this bill and finally end taxation without 
representation.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to provide my strong support for 
H.R. 1905, The District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2007. 
Ensuring that all citizens have the opportunity to participate in our 
democracy is a responsibility I take very seriously and H.R. 1905 is 
one legislative measure that seeks to achieve this objective.
  We take pride as a Nation for the numerous freedoms extended to our 
citizens; however, the United States is the only democracy in the world 
that deprives the residents of its capital full voting representation 
in the legislature. For the past 200 years, District of Columbia 
residents have fulfilled their responsibility as citizens in countless 
ways such as serving in the military, paying federal taxes and serving 
on juries. Their rights should now be extended to include having a 
voice in the United States Congress.
  There is no place in our democracy for the 206-year-old injustice of 
``taxation without representation'' for the over half a million 
District residents. With 82 percent of our Nation's citizens in support 
of expanding this fundamental right to vote to all citizens, the time 
is now to correct this injustice and restore democracy in our Nation's 
capital.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to capitalize on this opportunity 
to extend to District residents an entitlement cherished so deeply by 
citizens of the United States--the right to vote.
  Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of 
the District of Columbia Voting Rights Bill, and commend Delegate 
Eleanor Holmes Norton and Oversight and Government Reform Committee 
Ranking Member Tom Davis for their hard work and commitment to ensuring 
that District of Columbia residents have full representation in 
Congress.
  Eighty-two percent of Americans believe that the District should have 
voting rights in the House. It is time to end the 206 years of 
``taxation without representation'' for District of Columbia residents.
  H.R. 1905 will provide District of Columbia residents a vote in the 
U.S. House of Representatives. It will also grant a vote to the next 
State in line to get a congressional seat, which, according to the 2000 
Census, is Utah. As a result, this bill will permanently expand the 
size of the House of Representatives from 435 to 437. This bipartisan 
legislation also includes a ``non-severability clause'' providing that 
if a court determines that one section of this bill is invalid, then 
all other sections will be unenforceable.
  Ensuring that all citizens, including District of Columbia residents, 
have representation in the House is not only fair and just, but also 
critical to maintaining a strong democracy, in which all citizens' 
voices are heard. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this 
important legislation.

                              {time}  1400

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 317, the bill is considered as read and 
the previous question is ordered.
  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. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

[[Page 9402]]

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. I am 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. 1905 to 
     the Committee on the Judiciary with instructions to report 
     the same back to the House forthwith with the following 
     amendment:
       Add at the end the following new section:

     SEC. 5. EXPEDITED JUDICIAL REVIEW.

       (a) Special Rules for Actions Brought on Constitutional 
     Grounds.--If any action is brought for declaratory or 
     injunctive relief to challenge the constitutionality of any 
     provision of this Act or any amendment made by this Act, the 
     following rules shall apply:
       (1) The action shall be filed in the United States District 
     Court for the District of Columbia and shall be heard by a 3-
     judge court convened pursuant to section 2284 of title 28, 
     United States Code.
       (2) A copy of the complaint shall be delivered promptly to 
     the Clerk of the House of Representatives and the Secretary 
     of the Senate.
       (3) A final decision in the action shall be reviewable only 
     by appeal directly to the Supreme Court of the United States. 
     Such appeal shall be taken by the filing of a notice of 
     appeal within 10 days, and the filing of a jurisdictional 
     statement within 30 days, of the entry of the final decision.
       (4) It shall be the duty of the United States District 
     Court for the District of Columbia and the Supreme Court of 
     the United States to advance on the docket and to expedite to 
     the greatest possible extent the disposition of the action 
     and appeal.
       (b) Intervention by Members of Congress.--In any action in 
     which the constitutionality of any provision of this Act or 
     any amendment made by this Act is raised (including but not 
     limited to an action described in subsection (a)), any member 
     of the House of Representatives (including a Delegate or 
     Resident Commissioner to the Congress) or Senate shall have 
     the right to intervene either in support of or opposition to 
     the position of a party to the case regarding the 
     constitutionality of the provision or amendment. To avoid 
     duplication of efforts and reduce the burdens placed on the 
     parties to the action, the court in any such action may make 
     such orders as it considers necessary, including orders to 
     require intervenors taking similar positions to file joint 
     papers or to be represented by a single attorney at oral 
     argument.
       (c) Challenge by Members of Congress.--Any Member of 
     Congress may bring an action, subject to the special rules 
     described in subsection (a), for declaratory or injunctive 
     relief to challenge the constitutionality of any provision of 
     this Act or any amendment made by this Act.

  Mr. SMITH of Texas (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent that the motion to recommit be considered as read and printed 
in the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Texas is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, let me be clear. Any Member who 
votes for this bill is voting to grant D.C. residents more voting power 
in the House of Representatives than any of their own constituents now 
enjoy. That is because this latest version of the bill fails to 
eliminate the position of D.C. Delegate.
  The D.C. Delegate can, of course, vote in committee, which means that 
if this bill passes, D.C. residents will have two votes in committee 
and one on the House floor. That would give D.C. residents more voting 
power in the House than any other voter in the country. That is 
obviously unfair, and I think we all know it.
  Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit simply requires expedited 
judicial review of the constitutionality of the bill's provision. I 
believe this legislation is unconstitutional and will produce 
significant legal and electoral turmoil if enacted. So it is critical 
that the motion to recommit be adopted to ensure that if the bill 
violates the Constitution, that unconstitutional action will not be 
prolonged.
  This motion to recommit constitutes the very same expedited judicial 
review provision Congress agreed was appropriate, on a bipartisan 
basis, in the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law. That provision was 
successfully employed to facilitate the Supreme Court's expeditious 
review of that legislation.
  Opponents might claim that an expedited review of the legislation 
would already be provided by 28 U.S.C. sections 2284 and 1253, but that 
is very far from clear. 28 U.S.C. section 2284 only applies to 
``actions filed challenging the constitutionality of an apportionment 
of a congressional district over the apportionment of any statewide 
legislative body.'' The creation of a new House Member to represent a 
non-State constitutes neither an apportionment nor something relating 
to a statewide legislative body. The 14th amendment itself makes clear 
that apportionment is a concept that only applies to States.
  Also, nothing in 28 U.S.C. section 1253 requires the Supreme Court to 
ever hear the case, and absent a statutory requirement, the Supreme 
Court retains the discretion regarding whether and when to a hear a 
case.
  In contrast, the motion to recommit requires that the case be brought 
in the District of Columbia before a three-judge Federal district court 
with direct appeal to the Supreme Court. The motion to recommit 
provides that ``It shall be the duty of the United States District 
Court for the District of Columbia and the Supreme Court of the United 
States to advance on the docket and to expedite to the greatest 
possible extent the disposition of the action and appeal.''
  Professor Jonathan Turley, someone the majority consults frequently 
for his views, said in his testimony offered at the Judiciary 
Committee's hearing on the first of three versions of this bill that 
were introduced, ``Permit me to be blunt, I consider this act to be the 
most premeditated unconstitutional act by Congress in decades.''
  As Professor Turley also pointed out, the inevitable legal challenge 
to this bill could produce legislative chaos. With a relatively close 
party division in the House, the casting of a determinative vote 
subsequently held invalid by a court could throw the validity of pieces 
of future legislation into question.
  There is no reason to stall a judicial resolution of these important 
issues, especially when doing so risks legislative chaos regarding the 
validity of future legislation passed by the House.
  Mr. Speaker, if supporters of H.R. 1905 believe the bill is 
constitutional, and I know they do, they should want to get that 
constitutionality established by the Supreme Court as soon as possible. 
Likewise, we should all want to shorten the time that the 
Representatives created under this bill would serve, if they are, in 
fact, declared unconstitutional.
  The bill is either constitutional or it is not. Let's adopt this 
motion to ensure that question is resolved expeditiously and to prevent 
as much uncertainty as possible.
  I encourage my colleagues to support this motion to recommit.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to 
recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to commend my friend 
from Texas (Mr. Smith). His arguments are cogent and our relationship 
on the committee is excellent.
  But I must comment as to the argument that our bill allows the 
District of Columbia to have both a Representative and a Delegate. We 
fully intend to repeal the Delegate part of it by separate statute as 
soon as we get the bill that will allow the District to have a 
Representative.
  We have had lots of debate, and he has quoted Professor Turley, who 
has made the most extreme statement, his personal beliefs. And we 
invited him as a panelist, but he has been profoundly in the minority 
on a number of other issues as well. So I do not regard his opinion as 
having any more or less importance or significance than any of the 
other constitutional experts that we heard.
  Now, here is the problem. We would, if this motion to recommit were 
passed, provide for two things: expedited review of this matter and 
standing to all Members of Congress to challenge the constitutionality 
of the bill before us. Four hundred thirty-five

[[Page 9403]]

Members would be granted standing. Why? Are there not enough 
constitutional lawyers and supporters and opponents on both sides to 
take care of this matter, rather than to have the Supreme Court filled 
with Members of Congress wanting to vent probably very repetitious 
views?
  This is a motion based on an amendment which has been debated and 
defeated in the Judiciary Committee when we considered an earlier 
version of this bill only weeks ago.
  Now, I recognize and appreciate that the motion is being offered in 
good faith to amend the bill. However, as I have stated before, it is 
my concern that this recommit motion will do far more harm than it 
could ever cause good.
  I am concerned that the motion puts Congress down on record as 
believing that the bill is constitutionally weak. It is not, and 
therefore, I cannot support a motion to recommit that would make this 
concession. Nothing could be further from the truth.
  We have had hearings on top of hearings from everyone who claimed to 
be a constitutional expert on this subject anywhere in the Judiciary 
Committee. We have heard from everybody on both sides of the aisle over 
the last several Congresses, and based on the record, there is ample 
precedent for the Congress, using the District clause as authority for 
this legislation as they have for taxes, for diversity, for labor and 
numerous other matters. Clearly, this bill falls within the general 
line of authority.
  Now, concerning expedited judicial review in this motion, the courts 
are perfectly capable of handling the issue. There are judicial 
standards for dealing with expedited review, namely, when there is a 
showing of irreparable harm. Nobody has mentioned that as a reason for 
having expedited review. Irreparable harm coming and giving the 
Delegate of this District the right to vote? We have statutes on the 
books that cover this very issue already.
  We did not provide expedited review of such controversial laws as the 
PATRIOT Act, parts of which have actually been held, subsequently, 
unconstitutional. Yet, the issue was readily dealt with by the courts.
  The courts will readily deal with this issue as well. And I am 
strongly opposed to the idea of Congress passing laws that confer 
unique standing on themselves or special rights to intervene in pending 
lawsuits.
  You can always become amicus curiae, and so for those reasons and 
others, I urge that this motion to recommit be turned down.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired.
  Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to 
recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. SMITH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of passage of the bill.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 193, 
nays 227, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 230]

                               YEAS--193

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--227

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castor
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Boehner
     Cantor
     Cubin
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Fattah
     Higgins
     Israel
     Lampson
     Millender-McDonald
     Rohrabacher
     Schmidt
     Walsh (NY)
     Wicker

                              {time}  1434

  Messrs. BRADY of Pennsylvania, SPRATT, ALLEN, HALL of New York, HILL, 
BACA, SCOTT of Virginia, KAGEN, BLUMENAUER, CLYBURN, VAN HOLLEN, KLEIN 
of Florida, Ms. GIFFORDS, Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California, Ms. 
McCOLLUM of Minnesota, and Ms. ESHOO changed their vote from ``yea'' to 
``nay.''
  Messrs. DAVIS of Kentucky, HASTERT, CAMP of Michigan,

[[Page 9404]]

HERGER, SHAYS, YOUNG of Alaska, Mrs. MYRICK and Mrs. BLACKBURN changed 
their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mrs. SCHMIDT. Mr. Speaker, on H.R. 1905, motion to recommit, I was 
unavoidably detained due to official business. I would have voted 
``yea.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Ross). The question is on the passage of 
the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 241, 
noes 177, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 231]

                               AYES--241

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Cannon
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Castle
     Castor
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English (PA)
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth Sandlin
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Issa
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pence
     Perlmutter
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--177

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boustany
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Capito
     Carney
     Carter
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Deal (GA)
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Kanjorski
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     Lamborn
     Latham
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Poe
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Sali
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Taylor
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                        ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

       
     Bishop (UT)
       

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Berman
     Boehner
     Cantor
     Cubin
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Fattah
     Higgins
     Israel
     Lampson
     Millender-McDonald
     Peterson (MN)
     Rohrabacher
     Walsh (NY)
     Wicker


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised 2 
minutes remain in this vote.

                              {time}  1442

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mr. FATTAH. Mr. Speaker, had I been present for the vote on H.R. 
1905, I would have voted ``aye.''

                          ____________________