[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 155 (2009), Part 5]
[Senate]
[Pages 6080-6082]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                            DC VOTING RIGHTS

  Mr. DODD. Mr. President, I had intended to speak briefly yesterday on 
a very important piece of legislation, S. 160, the District of Columbia 
House Voting Rights Act of 2009, but I was delayed by meetings and so 
wanted to have an opportunity to address this bill today. S. 160 
provides the people of our Nation's capital with permanent voting 
representation for the first time in over 200 years. Legislation on 
this matter has been bottled up for many years in the Senate, and I am 
hopeful that this year it will finally be enacted.
  Despite our Nation's great progress over the years toward removing 
unnecessary and irrelevant voting restrictions--including those based 
on race, sex, wealth, property ownership, and marital status--about 
half a million U.S. citizens are effectively unrepresented in the U.S. 
Congress. Major decisions in domestic and foreign policy are made in 
these citizens' backyards, but they have no one to represent their 
concerns as a voting Member of Congress.
  As a recent New York Times editorial stated, ``Washington's lack of

[[Page 6081]]

representation is profoundly undemocratic. Its residents are American 
citizens who pay taxes, vote for the president and serve and die in the 
military. Although the city is relatively small, it is more populous 
than Wyoming and nearly equal to those of Vermont and Alaska.'' DC 
residents pay the second highest per capita Federal income taxes in the 
country but have no vote on how the Federal Government spends their 
money. The famous phrase, ``no taxation without representation,'' that 
ignited the American Revolution and launched the original Thirteen 
Colonies on their quest for independence is still displayed prominently 
on DC license plates today.
  It is ironic that the city most closely associated with our 
democratic Government is the very place that U.S. citizens remain 
without a voice or a vote in Congress. In the words of Thomas Paine: 
``The right of voting for representatives is the primary right by which 
other rights are protected.'' It is, in fact, the right on which all 
others in our democracy depend. The Constitution guarantees it, and the 
U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly underscored that it is one of our 
most precious and fundamental rights as citizens.
  I know that some opponents argue that the reasons the Founders made 
the Nation's Capital a separate district, rather than locate it within 
a State, remain sound, and therefore we should not tinker with their 
work, even at the cost of continued disenfranchisement of DC's 
citizens. That argument ignores the commitment we all must have to 
extending the full franchise to all Americans and to ensuring their 
representation in Congress. And it ignores the fact that article I of 
the Constitution explicitly gives Congress legislative authority over 
the District ``in all cases whatsoever.'' The courts have over time 
described this power as ``extraordinary and plenary'' and ``full and 
unlimited,'' and decades of legislative and judicial precedents make 
clear that the simple word ``states'' in article I--which provides that 
the House of Representatives ``shall be composed of members chosen by 
the people of the several states''--does not trump Congress's 
legislative authority to grant representation in the House to citizens 
of the District. Even so, to address the concerns of some, section 
2(a)(2) of the bill states that ``The District of Columbia shall not be 
considered a State for purposes of representation in the United States 
Senate.''
  The current bipartisan compromise embodied in this bill would 
increase the number of seats in the House of Representatives from 435 
to 437. It would provide one seat for a voting Member representing DC 
that is predominantly Democratic and one at-large seat for Utah in a 
district that is predominantly Republican-leaning and which was next in 
line for congressional representation in the House according to 2000 
census data. This legislation strikes the appropriate balance by 
allowing additional representation for both DC and Utah without 
disadvantaging either national political party. It embodies a 
reasonable compromise and allows for a responsible reassessment during 
the next reapportionment effort.
  Congress has never granted the DC Delegate full voting rights in the 
House. Whether such a Federal law is constitutional has never been 
placed squarely before the courts. While no one can respond to the 
constitutionality question with certainty until the U.S. Supreme Court 
issues a binding decision directly on point, a bipartisan group of 
academics, judges, and lawyers have concluded that Congress has the 
authority to provide for voting representation for the District's 
people. Upon review of the arguments on both sides, I agree. I believe 
that the Constitution vests in Congress broad power to regulate 
national elections and plenary authority over DC under article I, 
section 8, clause 17, known as the ``District clause,'' to address this 
problem legislatively without the need for a constitutional amendment.
  When even conservative legal scholars--from Judges Ken Starr, former 
U.S. Solicitor General appointed by President George H.W. Bush, to 
former Assistant Attorney General Viet Dinh appointed by President 
George W. Bush--have done exhaustive legal analyses which outline the 
positive case for Congress granting representational rights to citizens 
of the District, you know there is a strong case to be made. In any 
event, it is clear to me that these important constitutional questions 
should ultimately be resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court, and enactment 
of this bill would enable us to do just that. If opponents of the bill 
are so certain of their constitutional arguments, they should, it seems 
to me, allow those arguments to be tested in the full light of day, in 
the courts, and be resolved once and for all. If it were to be enacted 
and then struck down because of constitutional infirmities, it would 
then be clear that a constitutional amendment is the only viable 
alternative left to DC citizens. This bill provides for expedited 
review by the courts of the constitutionality of the law, a prudent 
step in my view.
  Mr. President, I would like to briefly address the issue of the 
fairness doctrine, which was the subject of two votes yesterday. This 
doctrine, enforced by the Federal Communications Commission, FCC, for 
over 30 years, required broadcast licensees to cover issues of public 
importance in a fair, balanced manner.
  The fairness doctrine was established to ensure that there would be a 
diversity of views available to the public in the limited media market 
available at the time of its adoption. At the time of its 
establishment, there were just three major television networks and a 
far smaller number of radio stations. However, in 1987, the FCC 
rescinded the policy after concluding that the doctrine was no longer 
necessary given the abundance of media outlets available to the public.
  I have been supportive of the fairness doctrine in the past because a 
well-informed citizenry is of fundamental importance to our democracy. 
However, given the incredible communications innovations just over the 
last decade and the explosion of new news sources, I believe that 
reinstating the fairness doctrine could prove unnecessary and 
unmanageably complex. Today, citizens can get their news from the major 
broadcast television networks, a growing number of 24-hour cable news 
networks, dozens of radio stations, and hundreds or thousands of 
Internet news outlets and blogs.
  I supported the amendment offered yesterday by Senator DeMint 
because, in my view, such a fundamental issue as how the public gets 
its news deserves a larger forum for debate than the FCC provides. The 
DeMint amendment ensures that only Congress would have the authority to 
reinstate the fairness doctrine. While the FCC will continue to play a 
critically important role in regulating telecommunications, as the 
elected representatives of the people, the Members of this body and the 
House of Representatives must be involved in whether to reinstate such 
a far-reaching policy.
  Mr. President, what is at stake with the DC voting rights legislation 
is nothing less than a fundamental issue of fairness in voting. Every 
eligible citizen, regardless of where he or she lives, has a 
constitutionally guaranteed right to be represented in Congress by a 
voting Member. This bill is another step forward in our efforts to 
ensure that all Americans are represented equally before this 
Government. It is the right thing to do, and this century is the right 
time to do it. In fact, it is long past due. I commend my colleague 
from Connecticut, the chairman of the Homeland Security and 
Governmental Affairs Committee, for bringing this important measure 
before the Senate and for getting it adopted by the Senate yesterday, 
even with the unnecessary and unwise addition of the gun provisions, 
which I hope will be stripped from the final bill. I hope the House 
will act favorably on it next week and that we will soon have a 
conference report before us to vote on. The President has made clear he 
would sign it, and I hope it will be enacted soon. The people of the 
District have waited much too long for that happy day.

[[Page 6082]]



                          ____________________