[Senate Report 110-123]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]



110th Congress                                                   Report
                                 SENATE
 1st Session                                                    110-123
_______________________________________________________________________

                                     

                                                       Calendar No. 257

          DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HOUSE VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 2007

                               ----------                              

                              R E P O R T

                                 of the

                   COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND
                          GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                              to accompany

                                S. 1257

                             together with

                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

TO PROVIDE THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA A VOTING SEAT AND THE STATE OF UTAH 
           AN ADDITIONAL SEAT IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

 


                 June 28, 2007.--Ordered to be printed
        COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

               JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut, Chairman
CARL LEVIN, Michigan                 SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii              TED STEVENS, Alaska
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware           GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas              NORM COLEMAN, Minnesota
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana          TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
BARACK OBAMA, Illinois               PETE V. DOMENICI, New Mexico
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri           JOHN WARNER, Virginia
JON TESTER, Montana                  JOHN E. SUNUNU, New Hampshire

                  Michael L. Alexander, Staff Director
            Deborah P. Parkinson, Professional Staff Member
     Brandon L. Milhorn, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
            Amy L. Hall, Minority Professional Staff Member
                  Trina Driessnack Tyrer, Chief Clerk


                                                       Calendar No. 257
110th Congress                                                   Report
                                 SENATE
 1st Session                                                    110-123

======================================================================



 
          DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HOUSE VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 2007

                                _______
                                

                 June 28, 2007.--Ordered to be printed

                                _______
                                

Mr. Lieberman, from the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 
                    Affairs, submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                             together with

                            ADDITIONAL VIEWS

                         [To accompany S. 1257]

    The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 
Affairs, to which was referred the bill (S. 1257) to provide 
the District of Columbia a voting seat and the State of Utah an 
additional seat in the House of Representatives, having 
considered the same, reports favorably thereon with amendments 
and recommends that the bill, as amended, do pass.

                                CONTENTS

                                                                   Page
  I. Purpose and Summary..............................................1
 II. Background and Need for the Legislation..........................2
III. Legislative History..............................................4
 IV. Section-by-Section Analysis......................................5
  V. Evaluation of Regulatory Impact..................................6
 VI. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate........................7
VII. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported...........10
VIII.Additional Views................................................22


                         I. Purpose and Summary

    The purpose of S. 1257 is to provide the District of 
Columbia with full representation in the U.S. House of 
Representatives. The bill permanently expands the U.S. House of 
Representatives from 435 to 437 seats. The two-seat increase 
will provide a voting representative to the District of 
Columbia and a fourth seat to the State of Utah, the next state 
in line to receive an additional seat based on the 2000 census.

              II. Background and Need for the Legislation


                               BACKGROUND

    The citizens of the District of Columbia have lived without 
a voting representative in Congress since the federal 
government established the District as the nation's capital on 
land ceded by Maryland and Virginia over 200 years ago.\1\ 
Although the land was ceded to the federal government in 1790, 
the District of Columbia was not officially established by 
Congress for another ten years.\2\ Between 1790 and 1800, 
residents of what would become the District were allowed 
through legislation to continue to vote in congressional 
elections in their former states.\3\ Congress then passed the 
Organic Act of 1801 severing District residents' ties with 
Maryland and Virginia, thereby eliminating District residents' 
representation in Congress.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Equal Representation in Congress: Providing Voting Rights to 
the District of Columbia: Hearing Before the Senate Comm. on Homeland 
Security and Governmental Affairs, 110th Cong. (2007) (testimony of 
Viet D. Dinh).
    \2\ Id.
    \3\ Id.
    \4\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Today, District residents, who number close to 600,000, are 
still disenfranchised. These American citizens pay federal 
income taxes, serve in the military, and fulfill all other 
obligations of citizenship. Arguably, DC residents are more 
impacted by the federal government than the rest of the nation. 
The District has the second highest tax obligation per capita 
in the country;\5\ the District, unlike every other U.S. city, 
must receive the approval of Congress to spend locally 
generated tax dollars; and many District residents work for the 
federal government, meaning that their benefits and salary are 
directly impacted by the decisions of Congress. Moreover, DC 
has been the target of terrorist attack because it is the home 
of the U.S. government. Yet District residents do not have a 
vote in determining tax levels, defense and homeland security 
policy, or decisions impacting the federal workforce.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ Equal Representation in Congress: Providing Voting Rights to 
the District of Columbia: Hearing Before the Senate Comm. on Homeland 
Security and Governmental Affairs, 110th Cong. (2007) (testimony of 
Adrian M. Fenty).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Most Americans disapprove of the denial of voting rights to 
residents of the nation's capital. In 2005, an independent 
research firm found that 82 percent of Americans support equal 
voting rights in Congress for the District of Columbia.\6\ The 
results of the poll were consistent across the country 
regardless of age, geography, religion, or political 
affiliation.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ KRC Research, Survey conducted for DC Vote, U.S. Public Opinion 
on DC Voting Rights (January 2005).
    \7\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Moreover, the denial of voting representation to the 
District is a blemish on the United States' reputation in the 
international community. The United States is the only 
democracy in the world that denies voting representation to the 
residents of its nation's capital.\8\ This inconsistency was 
criticized by the Organization of American States in 1993 when 
it issued a report finding that the United States was in 
violation of international human rights law.\9\ The United 
Nations Human Rights Commission followed suit in 2006 by 
admonishing the U.S. for violating the International Covenant 
on Civil and Political Rights.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ Rick Bress, Memorandum submitted to the U.S. House of 
Representatives, Committee on the Judiciary, Constitutionality of the 
D.C. Voting Rights Bill (March 2006).
    \9\ Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Organization of 
American States, Report Number 98/03, Case 11.204 (December 2003).
    \10\ United Nations Human Rights Commission, International Covenant 
on Civil and Political Rights (September 2006) at 11-12.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    S. 1257 would correct this injustice by providing the 
District with one voting member in the U.S. House of 
Representatives beginning with the 111th Congress.
    The legislation would also give Utah, the next state in 
line to receive an additional representative based on the 2000 
census, a fourth seat in the House. Utah missed a fourth seat 
by less than 1,000 people in the year 2000 even though Utah 
officials argued that close to 10,000 missionaries were 
excluded from that count. Moreover, Utah's population has grown 
substantially since that time. According to the U.S. Census 
Bureau, Washington County in Southern Utah is the nation's 
fastest-growing metro area.\11\ The county's population has 
grown by over 40 percent since 2000, and the growth statistics 
from around the state are equally impressive.\12\ Based on its 
current population, Utah deserves a fourth seat in the House.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ U.S. Census Bureau, Population Change in the 100 Metropolitan 
Statistical Areas With the Largest Numeric Gain: April 1, 2000 to July 
1, 2006 (April 2007).
    \12\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  CONGRESS'S CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY

    Though some disagree, many constitutional scholars believe 
that providing the District with a House representative through 
legislation is clearly constitutional. In May 2007, 25 widely 
respected legal scholars wrote to Congress affirming that 
``Congress has the power through `simple' legislation to 
provide voting representation in Congress for DC residents.'' 
\13\ This authority lies within Article I, Section 8 of the 
Constitution (``the District Clause''), which gives Congress 
authority to ``exercise exclusive legislation in all cases 
whatsoever'' regarding the District of Columbia.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ Sheryll D. Cahsin, Viet D. Dinh, and 23 other legal scholars, 
Letter to the U.S. House of Representatives on the Constitutionality of 
DC Voting Rights Legislation (included in the May 15, 2007 hearing 
record) (March 2007).
    \14\ U.S. CONST., Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 17.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Those who argue that Congress does not have the authority 
to legislatively create a House seat for DC reference Article 
I, Section 2 of the Constitution, which states that the House 
``shall be composed of members chosen * * * by the people of 
the several states.'' \15\ However, the District did not exist 
when these words were ratified, and they cannot be read in 
isolation.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ U.S. CONST., Art. I, Sec. 2, cl. 1.
    \16\ Peter Raven-Hansen, Congressional Representation for the 
District of Columbia: A Constitutional Analysis, 12 Harv. J. on 
Legis.167, 172 (1975).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Courts have repeatedly upheld Congress's broad use of the 
District Clause to apply to the District constitutional 
provisions that on their face are limited to states. Article I, 
Section 2, for example, says that ``direct taxes shall be 
apportioned among the several states.'' \17\ In 1820, the 
Supreme Court unanimously held that Congress, exercising its 
legislative authority over the District, could impose direct 
federal taxes on District residents. Chief Justice John 
Marshall wrote that ``certainly the Constitution does not 
consider [the District's] want of a representative in Congress 
as exempting it from equal taxation.'' \18\ If the word 
``states'' did not prevent Congress from imposing taxes on 
District residents then, how can it prevent Congress from 
granting representation to District residents now?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\ U.S. CONST., Art. I, Sec. 2, cl. 3.
    \18\ Loughborough v. Blake, 18 U.S. (5 Wheat.) 317, 320 (1820).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Article III grants the federal courts jurisdiction over 
controversies ``between citizens of different states.'' \19\ 
Noting that it would be ``extraordinary'' for courts to be open 
to citizens of states but not citizens of the District,\20\ the 
Supreme Court unanimously held that Congress could correct this 
anomaly, and later upheld Congress' decision to do so by 
legislation.\21\ If the word ``states'' did not prevent 
Congress from granting access to the judicial branch then, how 
can it prevent Congress from granting access to the legislative 
branch today?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\ U.S. CONST., Art. III, Sec. 2, cl. 1.
    \20\ Hepburn, 6 U.S. (2 Cranch) at 453 (1805).
    \21\ Nat'l Mutual Ins. Co. v. Tidewater Transfer Co., 337 U.S. 582, 
600 (1949).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Originally, the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee of due 
process and equal protection applied only to states.\22\ The 
Supreme Court held in 1973 that while the Fourteenth Amendment 
itself does not apply to the District, Congress could extend 
the same protections by legislation under the District 
Clause.\23\ Congress did just that.\24\ If the word ``state'' 
did not prevent Congress from allowing District residents to 
sue for violation of constitutional rights, how can it prevent 
Congress from granting District residents a full voice in that 
same Congress?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \22\ U.S. Const. amend. XIV, Sec. 1.
    \23\ District of Columbia v. Carter, 409 U.S. 418 (1973).
    \24\ P.L. 96-170.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In 2000, after determining that the District does not have 
a ``judicially cognizable'' right to congressional 
representation, the Supreme Court affirmed that the District 
may pursue that goal in ``other venues,'' suggesting that such 
authority could be granted legislatively.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \25\ Equal Representation in Congress: Providing Voting Rights to 
the District of Columbia: Hearing Before the Senate Comm. on Homeland 
Security and Governmental Affairs, 110th Cong. (2007) (testimony of 
Viet D. Dinh).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Two centuries of political and judicial precedent support 
Congress's authority to legislatively extend House 
representation to the District under the District Clause. The 
Committee believes this authority, which the Supreme Court 
described as ``plenary in every respect,'' \26\ allows Congress 
to live up to the principles this nation was founded upon, and 
provide representation in the U.S. House of Representatives to 
the District of Columbia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \26\ Nat'l Mutual Ins. Co. v. Tidewater Transfer Co., 337 U.S. 582, 
592 (1949).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        III. Legislative History

    S. 1257 was introduced by Chairman Lieberman, Senator 
Hatch, and Senator Bennett on May 1, 2007, and was referred to 
the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. 
The bill was later cosponsored by Senators Clinton, Landrieu, 
Leahy, Kennedy, Obama, Mikulski, Kerry, Feingold, McCaskill, 
Pryor, Carper, Levin, and Sanders.
    The Committee held a hearing entitled ``Equal 
Representation in Congress: Providing Voting Rights to the 
District of Columbia,'' on May 15, 2007. Testimony was received 
from: Senator Orrin G. Hatch; Representative Tom Davis; 
Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton; Mayor Adrian Fenty, District of 
Columbia; Jack Kemp, former Congressman and Secretary of 
Housing and Urban Development; Wade Henderson, President and 
Chief Executive Officer, Leadership Conference on Civil Rights; 
Viet D. Dinh, Professor of Law, Georgetown University Law 
Center; and Jonathan R. Turley, Professor of Law, George 
Washington University Law School.
    The Committee on the Judiciary held a subsequent hearing 
entitled, ``Ending Taxation without Representation: The 
Constitutionality of S. 1257,'' on May 23, 2007. Testimony was 
received from: Representative Chris Cannon; Delegate Eleanor 
Holmes Norton; Mark L. Shurtleff, Utah Attorney General; John 
P. Elwood, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Department of 
Justice; Patricia Wald, former Chief Judge, United States Court 
of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit; Jonathan 
Turley, Professor of Law, George Washington University Law 
School; Charles J. Ogletree, Professor of Law, Harvard Law 
School; Kenneth R. Thomas, Congressional Research Service; and 
Richard P. Bress, Partner, Latham & Watkins, LLP.
    On June 13, 2007, the Committee considered S. 1257.
    The Committee adopted two amendments offered by Senator 
Collins and cosponsored by Senators Coleman and Voinovich. The 
first added a provision to the bill stating that the District 
shall not be considered a state for the purposes of Senate 
representation. This amendment was adopted by voice vote.
    Senators present were Lieberman, Levin, Akaka, Landrieu, 
Obama, McCaskill, Tester, Collins, Stevens, Voinovich, Coleman, 
and Warner.
    The second amendment required expedited consideration of 
any constitutional challenge to the legislation. The amendment 
was adopted by a vote of 15-1.
    Yeas: Lieberman, Levin, Akaka, Landrieu, Obama, Tester, 
Collins, Voinovich, Coleman, and Warner. Yeas by proxy: Carper, 
Pryor, McCaskill, Domenici, and Sununu. Nays: Stevens. Senator 
Coburn was not present and provided no instructions.
    By a vote of 9-1, the Committee ordered the bill as amended 
favorably reported to the full Senate.
    Yeas: Lieberman, Levin, Akaka, Landrieu, Obama, Tester, 
Collins, Voinovich, and Coleman. Nays: Warner. Yeas by proxy: 
Carper, Pryor, McCaskill. Nays by proxy: Stevens, Coburn, 
Domenici, and Sununu.

                    IV. Section-by-Section Analysis


Section 1. Short title

Section 2. Treatment of District of Columbia as a Congressional 
        District

    This section requires that the District of Columbia be 
treated as a congressional district for purposes of 
representation in the House of Representatives. House 
representation will apply to the District in the same way as to 
a state, except that the District may not receive more than one 
member under reapportionment of members. The section further 
clarifies that the District may not be treated as a state for 
purposes of Senate representation.

Section 3. Increase in membership of House of Representatives

    This section requires a permanent increase in the number of 
members in the House of Representatives from 435 to 437, 
effective with the 111th Congress and each succeeding Congress. 
One of the new members will be elected from the District of 
Columbia and the other from the state next in line to receive 
an additional seat, based on the 2000 census. The President is 
required to transmit a revised statement of reapportionment to 
Congress within 30 days of the enactment of this Act. The Clerk 
of the House of Representatives is then required to submit a 
report to the Speaker within 15 days of receiving the revised 
statement of apportionment naming Utah as the state receiving 
an additional seat (in addition to the District).

Section 4. Effective date; Timing of elections

    This section states that the new members from the District 
of Columbia and Utah may not be seated until the 111th 
Congress. In order for both members to be seated, the 
additional representative from Utah must be elected according 
to a redistricting plan enacted by the State of Utah. The 
Committee is aware that Utah signed a new redistricting plan 
into law on December 6, 2006, and encourages the state to use 
that plan. This plan will stay in effect for the 111th and 
112th Congresses.

Section 5. Conforming amendments

    This section repeals the Office of the District of Columbia 
Delegate and the Office of the Statehood Representative. This 
section also contains a number of conforming amendments to the 
District of Columbia Election Code and the law governing 
appointments to the military academies to reflect the repeal of 
the DC delegate and the establishment of a voting 
representative for the District.

Section 6. Nonseverability of provisions

    If any provision in this bill is determined to be invalid, 
the entire bill will be deemed invalid and have no effect of 
law.

Section 7. Judicial review

    If a legal challenge is brought to any provision in this 
bill, the judicial review shall be expedited to the greatest 
possible extent. The legal action will be heard by a 3-judge 
court in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, 
and any appeal must be made directly to the Supreme Court.

                   V. Evaluation of Regulatory Impact

    Pursuant to the requirement of paragraph 11(b)(1) of rule 
XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate the Committee has 
considered the regulatory impact of this bill. CBO states that 
there are no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as 
defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and no costs on 
State, local, or tribal governments. The legislation contains 
no other regulatory impact.

                   VI. Estimated Cost of Legislation

                                                     June 15, 2007.
Hon. Joseph I. Lieberman,
Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, U.S. 
        Senate, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 1257, the District 
of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2007.
    If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Matthew 
Pickford.
            Sincerely,
                                                   Peter R. Orszag.
    Enclosure.

S. 1257--District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2007

    Summary: S. 1257 would expand the number of Members in the 
House of Representatives from 435 to 437 beginning with the 
111th Congress. The legislation would provide the District of 
Columbia with one permanent Representative and add one 
additional new Member. Under S. 1257, the seat would initially 
be assigned to the state of Utah and then would be reallocated 
based on the next Congressional apportionment following the 
2010 census.
    CBO estimates that enacting the bill would increase direct 
spending by about $200,000 in 2009 and by about $2 million over 
the 2008-2017 period. In addition, implementing the bill would 
have discretionary costs of about $1 million in 2009 and about 
$7 million over the 2008-2012 period, assuming the availability 
of the appropriated funds.
    S. 1257 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector 
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) 
and would impose no significant costs on state, local, or 
tribal governments.
    Estimated cost to the Federal Government: The estimated 
budgetary impact of S. 1257 is shown in the following table. 
The costs of this legislation fall within budget function 800 
(general government).

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                         By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
                                                         ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             2008       2009       2010       2011       2012       2013       2014       2015       2016       2017     2008- 2012   2008- 2017
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                   CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING

New Representative's Salary and Benefits:
    Estimated Budget Authority..........................          0          *          *          *          *          *          *          *          *          *            1            2
    Estimated Outlays...................................          0          *          *          *          *          *          *          *          *          *            1            2
                                                                          CHANGES IN SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATION

New Representative's Office and Administrative Expenses:
    Estimated Authorization Level.......................          0          1          2          2          2          2          2          2          2          2            7           17
    Estimated Outlays...................................          0          1          2          2          2          2          2          2          2          2            7           17
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note: * = less than $500,000.

    Basis of estimate: For this estimate, CBO assumes that the 
bill will be enacted this year and that spending will follow 
historical patterns for Congressional office spending, 
beginning in 2009.
    The legislation would permanently expand the number of 
Members in the House of Representatives by two to 437 Members. 
The new representatives would take office on the same day 
beginning with the 111th Congress. One new Member would 
represent the District of Columbia and the other would be a 
Representative for the state of Utah until the next 
apportionment based on the 2010 census. The District of 
Columbia currently has a nonvoting delegate to the House of 
Representatives. S. 1257 would establish voting representation 
for the conversion of the District's delegate to Representative 
and would not add significant costs since the position is 
already funded with the same salary and administrative support 
as other Representatives.

Direct spending

    Enacting S. 1257 would increase direct spending for the 
salary and associated benefits for the new representative, 
beginning with a new Member from the state of Utah until the 
next apportionment based on the 2010 census. CBO estimates that 
the increase in direct spending for the Congressional salary 
and benefits would be about $2 million over the 2008-2017 
period. That estimate assumes that the current Congressional 
salary of $165,200 would be adjusted for inflation. With 
benefits, the 2008 cost would be about $200,000.

Spending subject to appropriation

    Based on the current administrative and expense allowances 
available for Members and other typical Congressional office 
costs, CBO estimates that the addition of a new Member would 
cost about $1 million in fiscal year 2009 and about $7 million 
over the 2008-2012 period, subject to the availability of 
appropriated funds.
    Intergovernmental and private-sector impact: S. 1257 
contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as 
defined in UMRA and would impose no significant costs on state, 
local, or tribal governments.
    Previous CBO estimate: On March 16, 2007, CBO transmitted a 
cost estimate for H.R. 1433, the District of Columbia House 
Voting Rights Act of 2007, as ordered reported by the House 
Committee on the Judiciary on March 15, 2007, and the House 
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on March 13, 2007. 
The three pieces of legislation are similar in that they all 
expand the number of Members in the House of Representatives. 
Under H.R. 1433, the new Members would take office during the 
110th Congress. Under the Senate bill, membership in the House 
of Representatives would be expanding beginning with the 111th 
Congress. The cost estimates reflect that difference.
    Estimate prepared by: Federal costs: Matthew Pickford; 
Impact on state, local, and tribal governments: Elizabeth Cove; 
Impact on the private-sector: Paige Piper/Bach.
    Estimate approved by: Peter H. Fontaine, Deputy Assistant 
Director for Budget Analysis.

       VII. Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported

    In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate, the following changes in existing 
law made by the bill, as reported, are shown as follows: 
(existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in black 
brackets, new matter is printed in italic, existing law in 
which no change is proposed is shown in roman):

                 SECTION 22 OF THE ACT OF JUNE 18, 1929


 AN ACT To provide for the fifteenth and subsequent decennial censuses 
    and to provide for apportionment of Representatives in Congress.

    Sec. 22. (a) On the first day, or within one week 
thereafter, of the first regular session of the Eighty-second 
Congress and of each fifth Congress thereafter, the President 
shall transmit to the Congress a statement showing the whole 
number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed, 
as ascertained under the seventeenth and each subsequent 
decennial census of the population, and the number of 
Representatives to which each State would be entitled under an 
apportionment of [the then existing number of Representatives] 
the number of Representatives established with respect to the 
One Hundred Tenth Congress by the method known as the method of 
equal proportions, no State to receive less than one Member.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (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.

                SECTION 3 OF TITLE 3, UNITED STATES CODE


                           NUMBER OF ELECTORS

    Sec. 3. The number of electors shall be equal to the number 
of Senators and Representatives to which the several States are 
by law entitled at the time when the President and Vice 
President to be chosen [come into office;] come into office 
(subject to the twenty-third amendment to the Constitution of 
the United States in the case of the District of Columbia); 
except, that where no apportionment of Representatives has been 
made after any enumeration, at the time of choosing electors, 
the number of electors shall be according to the then existing 
apportionment of Senators and Representatives.

TITLE 10, UNITED STATES CODE

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Subtitle B--Army

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


PART III--TRAINING

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER 403--UNITED STATES MILITARY ACADEMY

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



SEC. 4342. CADETS: APPOINTMENT; NUMBERS, TERRITORIAL DISTRIBUTION

    (a) The authorized strength of the Corps of Cadets of the 
Academy (determined for any year as of the day before the last 
day of the academic year) is 4,000 or such higher number as may 
be prescribed by the Secretary of the Army under subsection 
(j). Subject to that limitation, cadets are selected as 
follows:
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    [(5) Five cadets from the District of Columbia, nominated 
by the Delegate to the House of Representatives from the 
District of Columbia.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (f) Each candidate for admission nominated under clauses 
(3) through (9) of subsection (a) must be domiciled in the 
State, or in the congressional district, from which he is 
nominated, or in [the District of Columbia,] Puerto Rico, 
American Samoa, Guam, or the Virgin Islands, if nominated from 
one of those places.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Subtitle C--Navy and Marine Corps

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


PART III--EDUCATION AND TRAINING

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER 603--UNITED STATES NAVAL ACADEMY

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



SEC. 6954. MIDSHIPMEN: NUMBER

    (a) The authorized strength of the Brigade of Midshipmen 
(determined for any year as of the day before the last day of 
the academic year) is 4,000 or such higher number as may be 
prescribed by the Secretary of the Navy under subsection (h). 
Subject to that limitation, midshipmen are selected as follows:
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    [(5) Five from the District of Columbia, nominated by the 
Delegate to the House of Representatives from the District of 
Columbia.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 6958. MIDSHIPMEN: QUALIFICATIONS FOR ADMISSION

    (a) * * *
    (b) Each candidate for admission nominated under clauses 
(3) through (9) of section 6954(a) of this title must be 
domiciled in the State, or in the congressional district, from 
which he is nominated, or in [the District of Columbia,] Puerto 
Rico, American Samoa, Guam, or the Virgin Islands, if nominated 
from one of those places.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


Subtitle D--Air Force

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


PART III--TRAINING

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER 903--UNITED STATES AIR FORCE ACADEMY

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



SEC. 9342. CADETS: APPOINTMENT; NUMBERS, TERRITORIAL DISTRIBUTION.

    (a) The authorized strength of Air Force Cadets of the 
Academy (determined for any year as of the day before the last 
day of the academic year) is 4,000 or such higher number as may 
be prescribed by the Secretary of the Air Force under 
subsection (j). Subject to that limitation, Air Force Cadets 
are selected as follows:
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    [(5) Five cadets from the District of Columbia, nominated 
by the Delegate to the House of Representatives from the 
District of Columbia.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (f) Each candidate for admission nominated under clauses 
(3) through (9) of subsection (a) must be domiciled in the 
State, or in the congressional district, from which he is 
nominated, or in [the District of Columbia,] Puerto Rico, 
American Samoa, Guam, or the Virgin Islands, if nominated from 
one of those places.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                   DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DELEGATE ACT


TITLE II--DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DELEGATE TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              SHORT TITLE

SEC. 201. THIS TITLE MAY BE CITED AS THE `DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DELEGATE 
                    ACT'.

    [DELEGATE TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES]
    [Sec. 202. (a) The people of the District of Columbia shall 
be represented in the House of Representatives by a Delegate, 
to be known as the `Delegate to the House of Representatives 
from the District of Columbia', who shall be elected by the 
voters of the District of Columbia in accordance with the 
District of Columbia Election Act. The Delegate shall have a 
seat in the House of Representatives, with the right of debate, 
but not of voting, shall have all the privileges granted a 
Representative by section 6 of Article I of the Constitution, 
and shall be subject to the same restrictions and regulations 
as are imposed by law or rules on Representatives. The Delegate 
shall be elected to serve during each Congress.]
    [(b) No individual may hold the office of Delegate to the 
House of Representatives from the District of Columbia unless 
on the date of his election--]
          [(1) he is a qualified elector (as that term is 
        defined in section 2(2) of the District of Columbia 
        Election Act) of the District of Columbia;]
          [(2) he is at least twenty-five years of age;]
          [(3) he holds no other paid public office; and]
          [(4) he has resided in the District of Columbia 
        continuously since the beginning of the three-year 
        period ending on such date.]
    He shall forfeit his office upon failure to maintain the 
qualifications required by this subsection.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    [OTHER PROVISIONS AND AMENDMENTS RELATING TO THE 
ESTABLISHMENT OF A DELEGATE TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
FROM THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA]
    [Sec. 204. (a) The provisions of law which appear in--]
          [(1) section 25 (relating to oath of office),]
          [(2) section 31 (relating to compensation),]
          [(3) section 34 (relating to payment of 
        compensation),]
          [(4) section 35 (relating to payment of 
        compensation),]
          [(5) section 37 (relating to payment of 
        compensation),]
          [(6) section 38a (relating to compensation),]
          [(7) section 39 (relating to deductions for 
        absence),]
          [(8) section 40 (relating to deductions for 
        withdrawal),]
          [(9) section 40a (relating to deductions for 
        delinquent indebtedness),]
          [(10) section 41 (relating to prohibition on 
        allowance for newspapers),]
          [(11) section 42c (relating to postage allowance),]
          [(12) section 46b (relating to stationery 
        allowance),]
          [(13) section 46b-1 (relating to stationery 
        allowance),]
          [(14) section 46b-2 (relating to stationery 
        allowance),]
          [(15) section 46g (relating to telephone, telegraph, 
        and radiotelegraph allowance),]
          [(16) section 47 (relating to payment of 
        compensation),]
          [(17) section 48 (relating to payment of 
        compensation),]
          [(18) section 49 (relating to payment of 
        compensation),]
          [(19) section 50 (relating to payment of 
        compensation),]
          [(20) section 54 (relating to provision of United 
        States Code Annotated or Federal Code Annotated),]
          [(21) section 60g-1 (relating to clerk hire),]
          [(22) section 60g-2(a) (relating to interns),]
          [(23) section 80 (relating to payment of 
        compensation),]
          [(24) section 81 (relating to payment of 
        compensation),]
          [(25) section 82 (relating to payment of 
        compensation),]
          [(26) section 92 (relating to clerk hire),]
          [(27) section 92b (relating to pay of clerical 
        assistants),]
          [(28) section 112e (relating to electrical and 
        mechanical office equipment),]
          [(29) section 122 (relating to office space in the 
        District of Columbia), and]
          [(30) section 123b (relating to use of House 
        Recording Studio),]

of title 2 of the United States Code shall apply with respect 
to the Delegate to the House of Representatives from the 
District of Columbia in the same manner and to the same extent 
as they apply with respect to a Representative. The Federal 
Corrupt Practices Act and the Federal Contested Election Act 
shall apply with respect to the Delegate to the House of 
Representatives from the District of Columbia in the same 
manner and to the same extent as they apply with respect to a 
Representative.
    [(b) Section 2106 of title 5 of the United States Code is 
amended by inserting `a Delegate from the District of 
Columbia,' immediately after `House of Representatives,'.]
    [(c) Sections 4342(a)(5), 6954(a)(5), and 9342(a)(5) of 
title 10 of the United States Code are each amended by striking 
out `by the Commissioner of that District' and inserting in 
lieu thereof `by the Delegate to the House of Representatives 
from the District of Columbia'.]
    [(d)(1) Section 201(a) of title 18 of the United States
    Code is amended by inserting `the Delegate from the 
District of Columbia,' immediately after `Member of 
Congress,'.]
    [(2) Sections 203(a)(1) and 204 of title 18 of the United 
States Code are each amended by inserting `Delegate from the 
District of Columbia, Delegate Elect from the District of 
Columbia,' immediately after `Member of Congress Elect,'.]
    [(3) Section 203(b) of title 18 of the United States Code 
is amended by inserting `Delegate,' immediately after 
`Member,'.]
    [(4) The last undesignated paragraph of section 591 of 
title 18 of the United States Code is amended by inserting `the 
District of Columbia and' immediately after `includes'.]
    [(5) Section 594 of title 18 of the United States Code is 
amended (1) by striking out `or' immediately after `Senate,', 
and (2) by striking out `Delegates or Commissioners from the 
Territories and possessions' and inserting in lieu thereof 
`Delegate from the District of Columbia, or Resident 
Commissioner'.]
    [(6) Section 595 of title 18 of the United States Code is 
amended by striking out `or Delegate or Resident Commissioner 
from any Territory or Possession' and inserting in lieu thereof 
`Delegate from the District of Columbia, or Resident 
Commissioner'.]
    [(e) Section 11(c) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 (42 
U.S.C. 1973i(c)) is amended by striking out `or Delegates or 
Commissioners from the territories or possessions' and 
inserting in lieu thereof `Delegate from the District of 
Columbia'.]
    [(f) The second sentence in the second paragraph of section 
7 of the District of Columbia Alcoholic Beverage Control Act 
(D.C. Code, sec. 25-107) is amended by striking out `the 
presidential election' and inserting in lieu thereof `any 
election'.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA OFFICIAL CODE

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



TITLE 1--GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER 1--DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA GOVERNMENT DEVELOPMENT

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



Subchapter II--Statehood

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



PART A--CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION INITIATIVE

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



Subpart I--General

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



SEC. 1--123. CALL OF CONVENTION; DUTIES OF CONVENTION; ADOPTION OF 
                    CONSTITUTION; REJECTION OF CONSTITUTION; ELECTION 
                    OF SENATOR AND REPRESENTATIVE.

    (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (d)(1) Following the approval of a proposed constitution by 
a majority of the electors voting thereon, there shall be held 
an election of candidates for the [offices of Senator and 
Representative] office of Senator from the new state. Such 
election shall be partisan and shall be held at the next 
regularly scheduled primary and general elections following 
certification by the District of Columbia Board of Elections 
and Ethics that the proposed constitution has been approved by 
a majority of the electors voting thereon. In the event that 
the proposed constitution is approved by the electors at the 
general election to be held in November, 1982, the primary and 
generalelections authorized by this paragraph shall be held in 
September, 1990, and November, 1990, respectively.
    (2) The qualifications for candidates for the [offices of 
Senator and Representative] office of Senator shall conform 
with the provisions of Article I of the United States 
Constitution and the primary and general elections shall follow 
the same electoral procedures as provided for candidates for 
nonvoting Delegate of the District of Columbia in the District 
of Columbia Election Code of 1955, subchapter I of Chapter 10 
of this title. The term of the 1st Representative elected 
pursuant to this initiative shall begin on January 2, 1991, and 
shall expire on January 2, 1993. The terms of the 1st Senators 
elected pursuant to this initiative shall begin on January 2, 
1991, and shall expire on January 2, 1997, and January 2, 1995, 
respectively. At the initial election, the candidate for 
Senator receiving the highest number of votes will receive the 
longer term and the candidate receiving the second highest 
number of votes will receive the shorter term. A primary and a 
general election to replace [a Representative or] a Senator 
whose term is about to expire shall be held in September and in 
November respectively, of the year preceding the year during 
which the term of [the Representative or] the Senator expires. 
Each [Representative shall be elected for a 2-year term and 
each] Senator shall be elected for a 6-year term as prescribed 
by the Constitution of the United States.
    (3) The District of Columbia Board of Elections and Ethics 
shall: (A) Conduct elections to fill the positions of 2 United 
States Senators [and 1 United States Representative]; and

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (e) A [Representative or] Senator elected pursuant to this 
subchapter shall be a public official as defined in Sec. 1-
1106.02(a), and subscribe to the oath or affirmation of office 
provided for in 1-604.08.
    (f) A [Representative or] Senator:
        (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (g)(1) A [Representative or] Senator may solicit and 
receive contributions to support the purposes and operations of 
the [Representative's or] Senator's public office. A 
[Representative or] Senator may accept services, monies, gifts, 
endowments, donations, or bequests. A [Representative or] 
Senator shall establish a District of Columbia statehood fund 
in 1 or more financial institutions in the District of 
Columbia. There shall be deposited in each fund any gift or 
contribution in whatever form, and any monies not included in 
annual Congressional appropriations. A [Representative or] 
Senator is authorized to administer the [Representative's or] 
Senator's respective fund in any manner the [Representative or] 
Senator deems wise and prudent, provided that the 
administration is lawful, in accordance with the fiduciary 
responsibilities of public office, and does not impose any 
financial burden on the District of Columbia.
    (2) Contributions may be expended for the salary, office, 
or other expenses necessary to support the purposes and 
operations of the public office of a [Representative or] 
Senator, however, each [Representative or] Senator shall 
receive compensation no greater than the compensation of the 
Chairman of the Council of the District of Columbia, as 
provided in Sec. 1-204.03 and 1-611.09.
    (3) Each [Representative or] Senator shall file with the 
Director of Campaign Finance a quarterly report of all 
contributions received and expenditures made in accordance with 
paragraph (1) of this subsection. No campaign activities 
related to election or re-election to the office of 
[Representative or] Senator shall be conducted nor shall 
expenditures for campaign literature or paraphernalia be 
authorized under paragraph (1) of this subsection.
    (4) The recordkeeping requirements of subchapter I of 
Chapter 11 of this title, shall apply to contributions and 
expenditures made under paragraph (1) of this subsection.
    (5) Upon expiration of a [Representative's or] Senator's 
term of office and where the [Representative or] Senator has 
not been re-elected, the [Representative's or] Senator's 
statehood fund, established in accordance with paragraph (1) of 
this subsection, shall be dissolved and any excess funds shall 
be used to retire the [Representative's or] Senator's debts for 
salary, office, or other expenses necessary to support the 
purposes and operation of the public office of the 
[Representative or] Senator. Any remaining funds shall be 
donated to an organization operating in the District of 
Columbia as a not-for-profit organization within the meaning of 
section 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, approved 
October 22, 1986 (100 Stat. 2085; 26 U.S.C. 501(c)).
    (h) A [Representative or] Senator elected pursuant to 
subsection (d) of this section, shall be subject to recall 
pursuant to Sec. 1-1001.18, during the period of the 
[Representative's or] Senator's service prior to the admission 
of the proposed new state into the union.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 1--125. STATEHOOD COMMISSION.

    (a) The Statehood Commission shall consist of [27] 26 
voting members appointed in the following manner:
          (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (5) The United States Senators shall each appoint 1 
        member; and
          [(6) The United States Representative shall appoint 1 
        member; and]
           [(7)] (6) The Mayor, the Chairman of the Council, 
        and the Councilmember whose purview the Statehood 
        Commission comes within shall be non-voting members of 
        the Commission.
    (a-1)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
members serving unexpired terms on August 26, 1994, may 
continue to serve until appointments or reappointments are 
confirmed. Appointments or reappointments shall be made 
immediately after August 26, 1994, in the following manner:
         (A) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

         [(H) The United States Representative shall appoint 1 
        member for a 2 year term.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 1--127. APPROPRIATIONS.

    There is authorized to be appropriated from the General 
Fund of the District of Columbia an amount for the salaries and 
office expenses of the elected representatives to the Senate 
[and House] referred to in 1-123(d) during the period of their 
service prior to the admission of the proposed new state into 
the union.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                     PART B--HONORARIA LIMITATIONS

SEC. 1--131. APPLICATION OF HONORARIA LIMITATIONS.

    Notwithstanding the provisions of 1-135, the honoraria 
limitations imposed by part H of subchapter I of Chapter 11 of 
this title shall apply to a Senator [or Representative] elected 
pursuant to 1-123(d)(1), only if the salary ofthe Senator [or 
Representative] is supported by public revenues.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                    PART C--CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM

SEC. 1--135. APPLICATION OF CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM AND CONFLICT OF 
                    INTEREST ACT.

    All provisions of the District of Columbia Campaign Finance 
Reform and Conflict of Interest Act, subchapter I of Chapter 11 
of this title, which apply to the election of and service of 
the Mayor of the District of Columbia shall apply to persons 
who are candidates or elected to serve as United States 
Senators [and United States Representative] pursuant to this 
initiative.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


CHAPTER 10. ELECTIONS

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *



                 Subchapter I. Regulation of Elections


SEC. 1--1001.01. ELECTION OF ELECTORS.

    In the District of Columbia electors of President and Vice 
President of the United States, [the Delegate to the House of 
Representatives,] the Representative in the Congress, the 
members of the Board of Education, the members of the Council 
of the District of Columbia, the Mayor and the following 
officials of political parties in the District of Columbia 
shall be elected as provided in this subchapter:
         (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 1--1001.02. DEFINITIONS.

    For the purposes of this subchapter:
         (1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

           [(6) The term `Delegate' means the Delegate to the 
        House of Representatives from the District of 
        Columbia.]

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

          (13) The term `elected official' means the Mayor, the 
        Chairman and members of the Council, the President and 
        members of the Board of Education, [the Delegate to 
        Congress for the District of Columbia, United States 
        Senator and Representative,] the Representative in the 
        Congress, United States Senator, and advisory 
        neighborhood commissioners of the District of Columbia.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 1--1001.08. QUALIFICATIONS OF CANDIDATES AND ELECTORS; NOMINATION 
                    AND ELECTION OF [DELEGATE] REPRESENTATIVE, MAYOR, 
                    CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF COUNCIL, AND MEMBERS OF BOARD 
                    OF EDUCATION; PETITION REQUIREMENTS; ARRANGEMENT OF 
                    BALLOT.

    (a) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (h)(1)(A) The [Delegate], Representative in the Congress, 
Mayor, Chairman of the Council of the District of Columbia and 
the 4 at-large members of the Council shall be elected by the 
registered qualified electors of the District of Columbia in a 
general election. Each candidate for the office of [Delegate,] 
Representative in the Congress, Mayor, Chairman of the Council 
of the District of Columbia, and at-large members of the 
Council in any general election shall, except as otherwise 
provided in subsection (j) of this section and 1-1001.10(d), 
have been elected by the registered qualified electors of the 
District as such candidate by the next preceding primary 
election.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (i)(1) Each individual in a primary election for candidate 
for the office of [Delegate,] Representative in the Congress, 
Mayor, Chairman of the Council, or at-large member of the 
Council shall be nominated for any such office by a petition:
          (A) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (j)(1) A duly qualified candidate for the office of 
[Delegate,] Representative in the Congress, Mayor, Chairman of 
the Council, or member of the Council, may, subject to the 
provisions of this subsection, be nominated directly as such a 
candidate for election for such office (including any such 
election to be held to fill a vacancy). Such person shall be 
nominated by petition:
          (A) * * *
          (B) In the case of a person who is a candidate for 
        the office of member of the Council (other than the 
        Chairman or an at-large member), signed by 500 voters 
        who are duly registered under 1-1001.07 in the ward 
        from which the candidate seeks election; and in the 
        case of a person who is a candidate for the office of 
        [Delegate,] Representative in the Congress, Mayor, 
        Chairman of the Council, or at-large member of the 
        Council, signed by duly registered voters equal in 
        number to 1\1/2\ per centum of the total number of 
        registered voters in the District, as shown by the 
        records of the Board as of 123 days before the date of 
        such election, or by 3,000 persons duly registered 
        under 1-1001.07, whichever is less. No signatures on 
        such a petition may be counted which have been made on 
        such petition more than 123 days before the date of 
        such election.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


SEC. 1--1001.10. DATES FOR HOLDING ELECTIONS; VOTES CAST FOR PRESIDENT 
                    AND VICE PRESIDENT COUNTED AS VOTES FOR 
                    PRESIDENTIAL ELECTORS; VOTING HOURS; TIE VOTES; 
                    FILLING VACANCY WHERE ELECTED OFFICIAL DIES, 
                    RESIGNS, OR BECOMES UNABLE TO SERVE.

    (a)(1) * * *

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (3)(A) Except as otherwise provided in the case of special 
elections under this subchapter or section 206(a) of the 
District of Columbia Delegate Act, primary elections of each 
political party for [the office of Delegate to the House of 
Representatives] the office of Representative in the Congress 
shall be held on the 1st Tuesday after the 2nd Monday in 
September of each even-numbered year; and general elections for 
such office shall be held on the Tuesday next after the 1st 
Monday in November of each even-numbered year.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *

    (d)(1) In the event that any official, other than 
[Delegate,] Mayor, member of the Council, member of the Board 
of Education, or winner of a primary election for the office of 
[Delegate,] Mayor, or member of the Council, elected pursuant 
to this subchapter dies, resigns, or becomes unable to serve 
during his or her term of office leaving no person elected 
pursuant to this subchapter to serve the remainder of the 
unexpired term of office, the successor or successors to serve 
the remainder of the term shall be chosen pursuant to the rules 
of the duly authorized party committee, except that the 
successor shall have the qualifications required by this 
subchapter for the office.
    (2) [(A) In the event that a vacancy occurs in the office 
of Delegate before May 1 of the last year of the Delegate's 
term of office,] In the event that a vacancy occurs in the 
office of Representative in the Congress before May 1 of the 
last year of the Representative's term of office, the Board 
shall hold a special election to fill the unexpired term. The 
special election shall be held on the first Tuesday that occurs 
more than 114 days after the date on which the vacancy is 
certified by the Board unless the Board determines that the 
vacancy could be filled more practicably in a special election 
held on the same day as the next District-wide special, 
primary, or general election that is to occur within 60 days of 
the date on which the special election would otherwise have 
been held under the provisions of this subsection. The person 
elected to fill the vacancy in the office of Delegate shall 
take office the day on which the Board certifies his or her 
election. [(B) In the event that a vacancy occurs in the office 
of Delegate on or after May 1 of the last year of the 
Delegate's term of office, the Mayor shall appoint a successor 
to complete the remainder of the term of office.]
    (3) In the event of a vacancy in the office of [United 
States Representative or] United States Senator elected 
pursuant to Sec. 1--123 and that vacancy cannot be filled 
pursuant to paragraph (1) of this subsection, the Mayor shall 
appoint, with the advice and consent of the Council, a 
successor to complete the remainder of the term of office.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


1--1001.11. RECOUNT; JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ELECTION.

    (a)(1) * * *
    (2) If in any election for President and Vice President of 
the United States, [Delegate to the House of Representatives,] 
Representative in the Congress, Mayor, Chairman of the Council, 
member of the Council, President of the Board of Education, or 
member of the Board of Education, the results certified by the 
Board show a margin of victory for a candidate that is less 
than one percent of the total votes cast for the office, the 
Board shall conduct a recount. The cost of a recount conducted 
pursuant to this paragraph shall not be charged to any 
candidate.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


1--1001.15. CANDIDACY FOR MORE THAN 1 OFFICE PROHIBITED; MULTIPLE 
                    NOMINATIONS; CANDIDACY OF OFFICEHOLDER FOR ANOTHER 
                    OFFICE RESTRICTED.

    (a) * * *
    (b) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a) of 
this section, a person holding the office of Mayor, [Delegate,] 
Representative in the Congress, Chairman or member of the 
Council, or member of the Board of Education shall, while 
holding such office, be eligible as a candidate for any other 
of such offices in any primary or general election. In the 
event that said person is elected in a general election to the 
office for which he or she is a candidate, that person shall, 
within 24 hours of the date that the Board certifies said 
person's election, pursuant to subsection (a)(11) of Sec. 1-
1001.05, either resign from the office that person currently 
holds or shall decline to accept the office for which he or she 
was a candidate. In the event that said person elects to 
resign, said resignation shall be effective not later than 24 
hours before the date upon which that person would assume the 
office to which he or she has been elected.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


1--1001.17. RECALL PROCESS.

    (a) The provisions of this section shall govern the recall 
of all elected officers of the District of Columbia except [the 
Delegate to the Congress from the District of Columbia] the 
Representative in the Congress.

           *       *       *       *       *       *       *


                         VIII. Additional Views

            ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF SENATORS COBURN AND STEVENS

    The lack of Congressional representation for American 
citizens living in the District of Columbia is a grave 
injustice. However, the oath we swear upon taking office is to 
uphold and defend the Constitution, not justice. Happily, the 
two rarely diverge. However, our Framers wisely foresaw the 
possibility of such divergence and provided a remedy. When all 
constitutional options are exhausted in pursuit of justice, the 
one remaining remedy is the constitutional amendment process.
    We believe that there are constitutional options to remedy 
the injustice faced by District residents, but S. 1257 is not 
one of them. If the American people, in their wisdom, deem that 
the plainly constitutional options of admitting new States into 
the union, or of States voluntarily redrawing their borders are 
not desirable, then the Constitutional amendment process is the 
exclusive remaining remedy.
    Supporters of S. 1257 claim it is constitutional, but can 
only support their claim with a broad interpretation of the 
text, supplemented by a handful of Supreme Court opinions. In 
his letter to William Johnson of June 12, 1823, Thomas 
Jefferson provided us guidance with the following: ``Laws are 
made for men of ordinary understanding and should, therefore, 
be construed by the ordinary rules of common sense. Their 
meaning is not to be sought for in metaphysical subtleties 
which may make anything mean everything or nothing at 
pleasure.''
    The simple rules of statutory interpretation, rather than 
Jefferson's ``metaphysical subtleties,'' leave us no choice but 
to conclude that the bill is unconstitutional. These rules 
include first examining the plain meaning of the text of the 
Constitution before relying on an interpretation of another, 
and interpreting the parts that are unclear by those parts that 
are clear.
    We hope to demonstrate in these minority views that both an 
historical and a textual analysis of the Constitution will not 
support the approach taken by S. 1257. Further, we hope to 
demonstrate that the approach taken by supporters of the bill 
can produce at best only a tenuous constitutional foundation, 
and at worst a reason for Congress to embark upon, in the words 
of Professor Jonathan Turley, ``the most premeditated 
unconstitutional act by Congress in decades.'' \1\ Either 
conclusion should prevent Congress, bound by our oath of 
office, from passing this bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Turley, Jonathan, statement for the record for the Committee on 
the Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives, ``Legislative Hearing on 
H.R. 1433, the `District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2007,'' 
March 14, 2007, pg. 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                          HISTORICAL ANALYSIS

    In looking at history, it is clear that representation in 
government is at the heart of the American identity and that 
voting is one of the nation's most sacred rights. It is 
puzzling, then, why the Framers of the Constitution didn't 
choose to be more explicit regarding whether voting rights were 
intended for the residents of the District of Columbia. Yet, 
though the Constitution isn't as clear as some might want it to 
be, the Framers were not silent on the issue and have left us 
with sufficient evidence to conclude that this bill is 
unconstitutional.
Claim: The Federal District was not designed to be different than a 
        State
    Supporters of the bill argue that the Framers, with the 
ideals of the Revolutionary War fresh on their minds, obviously 
intended to provide residents of the District full voting 
rights like other citizens. Its omission, they claim, was 
simply an oversight of the Constitutional Convention. But, a 
closer look at the circumstances surrounding the creation of 
the federal district plainly refutes this claim.
    The idea of an independent federal district is said to have 
arisen in 1783 after an incident involving the Continental 
Congress in Philadelphia, and a mob of disgruntled soldiers.\2\ 
The soldiers claimed they had gone unpaid and, under threat of 
violence, forced Congress to meet and address their grievance. 
Congress sought protection from the Pennsylvania state militia, 
but was denied. Left without any protection, Congress convened 
under duress and addressed the matter. Realizing that the 
situation could happen again, the Framers recognized that the 
seat of government should not be dependent on the good graces 
and protection of any one State.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Footnote 1, Congressional Research Service Report for Congress 
RL 33830, District of Columbia Voting Representation in Congress: An 
Analysis of Legislative Proposals, April 23, 2007, pg. CRS-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Though the notion of protecting the federal government from 
the States is in many ways outdated and in modern times 
reversed, the Framers were concerned about preserving the 
government's independence. To ensure its independence, they not 
only carved out land for the District that was not located in 
any State, but designed it to be governed equally by all States 
through Congress. Additionally, the Framers wanted to protect 
the States from any unnecessary burdens. For example, housing 
the District within any single state would have, on the one 
hand, put a large financial burden on that state to maintain 
the capital, while on the other hand would have unfairly given 
that state the benefits of capital improvements paid for by the 
other States. The decision was eventually made to cede land 
from Maryland and Virginia to form a small district of ten 
square miles to ensure that the land belonged to no state.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Congress passed the Residence Act on July 16, 1790, during the 
First Congress, second session. Text of the act can be found here: 
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId-llsl-
&fileNamellsl001.db&rec.Num-253
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    James Madison reinforced this point on January 23, 1788, in 
writing Federalist no. 43 on the topic of a federal district:

          The indispensable necessity of complete authority at 
        the seat of government, carries its own evidence with 
        it. It is a power exercised by every legislature of the 
        Union, I might say of the world, by virtue of its 
        general supremacy. Without it, not only the public 
        authority might be insulted and its proceedings 
        interrupted with impunity; but a dependence of the 
        members of the general government on the State 
        comprehending the seat of the government, for 
        protection in the exercise of their duty, might bring 
        on the national councils an imputation of awe or 
        influence, equally dishonorable to the government and 
        dissatisfactory to the other members of the 
        Confederacy. This consideration has the more weight, as 
        the gradual accumulation of public improvements at the 
        stationary residence of the government would be both 
        too great a public pledge to be left in the hands of a 
        single State, and would create so many obstacles to a 
        removal of the government, as still further to abridge 
        its necessary independence. The extent of this federal 
        district is sufficiently circumscribed to satisfy every 
        jealousy of an opposite nature.

    While this would answer the question of independence for 
the nation's capital, it raised another question of what to do 
with the residents of Maryland and Virginia living in the land 
to be ceded to create the new federal district. These citizens 
had full voting rights as citizens of Maryland and Virginia, 
but those rights would be relinquished under the new plan.
Claim: The Founders forgot to address congressional representation for 
        district residents
    Supporters of S. 1257 today claim that the Framers 
inadvertently forgot to address congressional representation 
for these citizens because there were other pressing issues to 
consider at the time. Further still, the Constitution was a 
relatively new document and all of its implications were not 
yet well understood, particularly the issue of representation 
for citizens living in the newly formed federal district. 
Therefore, they believe that the Framers did not feel a 
pressing need to consider the question, but that if they had 
they certainly never intended to exclude residents from voting.
    The historical record, however, refutes this claim. In 
fact, there is solid evidence that the Framers had given this 
issue more than just a passing glance. Following the passage of 
the Residence Act in 1790, which designated the future site of 
Washington, D.C., residents of those areas retained their right 
to vote for representatives in Congress, but they were simply 
not allowed to vote as district residents. The Framers 
approached the issue by deferring to the State-based structure 
of the Union and allowed each former resident of Maryland and 
Virginia to vote in their home state. This was no small 
technicality; they believed it was the only acceptable means to 
allow these residents to vote in a manner consistent with the 
Constitution.
    Madison hints at this in a further reading of Federalist 
no. 43, by assuming that the state governments in Maryland and 
Virginia would make adequate provision for their residents 
living in those lands, including the matter of representation.

          And as [the land to create a federal district] is to 
        be appropriated to this use with the consent of the 
        State ceding it; as the State will no doubt provide in 
        the compact for the rights and the consent of the 
        citizensinhabiting it; as the inhabitants will find 
sufficient inducements of interest to become willing parties to the 
cession; as they will have had their voice in the election of the 
government which is to exercise authority over them; as a municipal 
legislature for local purposes, derived from their own suffrages, will 
of course be allowed them; and as the authority of the legislature of 
the State, and of the inhabitants of the ceded part of it, to concur in 
the cession, will be derived from the whole people of the State in 
their adoption of the Constitution, every imaginable objection seems to 
be obviated.

    This voting system changed with the passage of the Organic 
Act in 1801, which provided for governance of the federal 
district. Because the bill did not specifically address voting 
rights for district residents, it effectively nullified the 
previous arrangement. That voting rights weren't immediately 
restored to district residents after the passage of the Organic 
Act through other legislation is significant. It demonstrates 
that such rights were not automatically granted to district 
residents by the Constitution and that Congress would not or 
could not act legislatively in this area.
    Although some may point to this example and claim that if 
district residents were taken away by legislation (Organic Act) 
then voting rights can be given through legislation today. The 
flaw in this argument is that it fails to see the decidedly 
state-centered way in which the Framers handled the matter in 
contrast to the means being considered by S. 1257. The prior 
arrangement only allowed district residents to vote when they 
were still considered residents of their former home states. 
Above all else, what this example clearly shows is that these 
issues were in the minds of the Framers when they drafted the 
Constitution and were not, as some claim, an afterthought.

Claim: No one anticipated the district becoming a large city with many 
        citizens

    Another dubious claim made by supporters of S. 1257 is that 
hardly anyone, including the Framers themselves, anticipated 
the federal district becoming a large city home to large 
numbers of citizens seeking the right to vote. After all, there 
were barely 8,000 citizens living in the District at the time 
of its inception. They believe that if the Framers knew that 
larger numbers of people would be impacted by the creation of 
the District, then voting rights would have been granted. This 
point is easily refuted by looking at the original plan for the 
city, as commissioned by the federal government itself. As 
early as 1791, nine years before the federal government began 
its operations in Washington, D.C., Pierre-Charles L'Enfant 
completed a commission by President George Washington to design 
the city, and his design was anything but small. L'Enfant's 
design envisioned the federal district to be a large, thriving 
city with as many as 800,000 residents \4\--a size that is not 
matched today.\5\ Even a cursory glance at L'Enfant's earliest 
plans show that the intended design for the federal district is 
largely similar to today's design.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Library of Congress sources, http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/today/
jul16.html
    \5\ Statistics provided by the U.S. Census Bureau, and can be found 
online at: http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/11000.html
    \6\ A picture of L'Enfant's design for the City of Washington can 
be seen on the website of the Library of Congress, and can be found 
here: http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/us.capitol/twtynine.jpg
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Furthermore, the following journal entry was written by 
Henry Wansey in 1794, only three years after L'Enfant's plans 
for the district were finalized. This first-hand account 
clearly shows that the expectation existed even then that the 
city of Washington would become a great city.

          [A friend] has often been to the new federal city of 
        Washington; has no doubt it must be very considerable 
        in a few years, if the government is not overturned, 
        for nothing less can prevent it. Mercantile men will 
        principally settle in the South-East corner on the East 
        River. . . . The government will make it a principal 
        object to improve this place, and all its regulations 
        respecting its future grandeur are already planned, 
        suitable to a great and growing empire. . . . Many 
        houses are already built, and a very handsome hotel, 
        which cost in the erection more than thirty thousand 
        dollars . . . It is now apportioned into one thousand 
        two hundred and thirty-six lots, for building, (which 
        are for sale). Each lot contains ground for building 
        three or four houses.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ This excerpt was taken from the ``Journal of an Excursion to 
the United States of North America in the Summer of 1794,'' by Henry 
Wansey. It was reprinted in pg. 10. Text of the book can also be found 
at: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=lhbcb&fileName=03201.//
1hbcb03201.db&recNum=9&itemLink=r?ammem/
lhbcbbib:@field(NUMBER+@od1(1hbcb+03201))&linkText=0

    It stretches the bounds of one's imagination, in light of 
this evidence, to assume that the Framers and the Congress 
simply forgot to consider the voting rights of citizens in a 
city as large as the District would become. Even if they had, 
it was not long before citizens of the District began seeking 
such rights, reminding them of their ``mistake.'' In 1801, 
following the passage of the Organic Act, a group of District 
residents petitioned Congress for the right to vote. Tellingly, 
though, voting rights were not given to residents of the 
District, despite the fact that the Congress of that time was 
made up of many Framers of the Constitution. That residents 
were denied representation then does not necessarily mean they 
should be so denied today. However, this record does provide 
strong evidence that the Framers intended, whatever their 
reasons, that the District's residents would not have the same 
automatic rights to Congressional representation as residents 
of the several States.

Claim: The Framers did not intentionally exclude residents from voting 
        for congressional representation

    Supporters of S. 1257 believe, despite the fact that 
District residents were never given congressional 
representation, that these rights were not withheld on purpose. 
This claim is contradicted by examining the opinion of a 
prominent Framer soon after the Constitution's ratification. 
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall, former commander in 
the Revolutionary War, said the following in 1820 indicating 
strongly that voting rights were far from an after-thought:

          ``[The District has] relinquished the right of 
        representation, and has adopted the whole body of 
        Congress for its legitimate government. Although in 
        theory it might be more congenial to the spirit of our 
        institutions to admit a representative from the 
        district, certainly the Constitution does not consider 
        their want of a representative in Congress as exempting 
        it from equal taxation.'' \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ Adams v. Clinton, 90 F. Supp. 2d 35, 55 (D.D.C.), aff'd, 531 
U.S. 940 (2000) citing to Chief Justice Marshall's opinion in 
Loughborough v. Blake 18 U.S. (5 Wheat.) 317 (1820). Interestingly 
enough, the supporters of S. 1257 repeatedly cite to Loughborough as a 
case that supports their position since the Supreme Court ultimately 
did uphold federal taxation of District residents in the case.

    Clearly, Chief Justice Marshall, like us today, was 
uncomfortable with the distinct divergence in this case between 
justice and the Constitution, but barring a Constitutional 
amendment, he considered himself bound to the Constitution, 
whatever its perceived flaws. Prior to his appointment on the 
Supreme Court, William Rehnquist confirmed Marshall's opinion 
that the District did not have a legislative option for 
obtaining a vote, despite his own personal opinion that 
district residents should be given representation in Congress. 
Serving then as an assistant Attorney General in the U.S. 
Department of Justice in 1970, Rehnquist said: ``The need for 
an amendment [providing representation for the District] at 
this late date in our history is too self-evident for further 
elaboration; continued denial of voting representation from the 
District of Columbia can no longer be justified.'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ See the website of DC Vote at: http://www.dcvote.org/pdfs/
congress/dcvrarepublicanquotespdf.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Claim: Congress has always had the constitutional power to address this 
        matter through legislation

    The historical record of those who have previously 
attempted to address voting rights for the District itself 
testifies that nothing less than a change in the Constitution 
would be necessary. Since 1888, no fewer than 150 
constitutional amendments have been attempted to resolve the 
matter.\10\ Had a legislative option been available under the 
Constitution, surely a serious attempt would have been made 
prior to today to pass such a bill in Congress rather than go 
through the arduous task of passing a constitutional 
amendment--yet the supporters behind each of these efforts knew 
that it was an amendment, not a bill, that should be attempted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ Footnote 1, Congressional Research Service Report for Congress 
RL33830, District of Columbia Voting Representation in Congress: An 
Analysis of Legislative Proposals, April 23, 2007, pg. CRS-3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Of those in Congress that did try to address the matter, 
the issue primarily revolved around allowing the election of a 
non-voting delegate to Congress.\11\ No attempt has been made 
prior to S. 1257 to try and provide House representation 
through the legislative process. It is significant that until 
the consideration of S. 1257 by the 110th Congress that all 
previous Congresses, without exception, understood that the 
Constitution prevented them from passing such a bill.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ The following points were outlined by Richard P. Bress in 
responses to questions for the records in Ending Taxation Without 
Representation: The Constitutionality of S. 1257: Hearing on S. 1257 
Before the S. Comm. on the Judiciary, 110th Cong. *29 (2007). Mr. Bress 
identified the previous attempts by Congress to address the matter of 
congressional voting rights for the District of Columbia and 
categorized them in one of two ways: (1) legislation to examine the 
notion of voting rights for residents, and (2) allowing for a non-
voting delegate. Such attempts were made: Dec. 30, 1819, Rep. Kent 
(MD); March 20, 1819, Sen. Johnson (KY); Feb. 13, 1824, Rep. Ross (OH); 
April 26, 1830, Rep. Powers; Dec. 21, 1831, Rep. Carson (NC); March 9, 
1836; March 28, 1838, Sen Norvell (MI); January 28, 1845. No such 
attempts were made to legislatively expand the House of Representatives 
and provide for full voting representation for residents of the federal 
district.
    \12\ This point is made in full recognition of the fact that 
legislation was introduced in recent Congresses to address the matter 
of congressional representation through either (1) retrocession, (2) 
semi-retrocession, or (3) granting full membership to the House of 
Representatives. None of this legislation passed the Congress or was 
presented to the President for signature. Such legislation included in 
the 109th Congress: H.R. 190, H.R. 398, H.R. 5388, S. 195; in the 108th 
Congress: H.R. 1285, H.R. 3709, S. 617; and in the 107th: S. 3054.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The 150 constitutional amendment attempts have taken 
various forms and each one has failed to pass, with the 
exception of what became the 23rd Amendment. The 23rd Amendment 
provides District residents with the right to vote in 
Presidential elections. Other amendment attempts would have 
provided the District with one member of the House of 
Representatives and two Senators, while still others would have 
allowed for some combination of voting for the President as 
well as for representation in the House of Representatives and 
the Senate.
    While the merits of those proposals are not the subject of 
this discussion, they were seen to have failed by many because 
of their implications for Statehood for the federal district. 
No serious attempt has ever been made to pass a Constitutional 
amendment providing simply for representation in the House of 
Representatives. Until this is attempted, there is no 
historical evidence to demonstrate how such an amendment might 
fare. That the amendment process is difficult, though, does not 
grant Congress the luxury of circumventing the Constitutional 
process for the sake of political expediency.

Conclusion: The historical record demonstrates that S. 1257 is 
        unconstitutional

    The historical record is far from silent on the matter of 
congressional voting rights for residents of the federal 
district. In our view, the weight of evidence supports the 
notion that the original intent of the Framers, as well as the 
interpretation of 109 consecutive Congresses, was to preclude 
the residents of the District from being represented in the 
House of Representatives. Though the Framers believed at the 
time that such an arrangement did not run counter to our 
republican form of government, we have now come to believe 
differently.
    It is our view that though the reasons for creating a 
federal enclave without explicitly-provided voting rights for 
its residents may have seemed reasonable at the time, the 
reasons no longer hold the same appeal. And though it may be 
past time to alter the House of Representatives and allow a 
vote for the District in the House, Congress is constrained to 
act only in a Constitutional manner. We do not believe this to 
be the case with the approach taken by S. 1257.

                        CONSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS

Textual analysis

    As stated earlier, any effort to analyze the meaning of a 
specific constitutional provision must begin with the text 
itself. Supporters of the bill assert that the best place to 
begin this discussion is with the Federal Enclave Clause, at 
Article I, Section 8, Clause 17. However, since the bill's main 
effect is to change the composition of the House of 
Representatives, the proper place to begin is with the House 
Composition Clause found at Article I, Section 2:

          Section 2. The House of Representatives shall be 
        composed of members chosen every second year by the 
        people of the several states, and the electors in each 
        state shall have the qualifications requisite for 
        electors of the most numerous branch of the state 
        legislature.

    It is clear that the term ``state'' is used numerous times 
in this provision, as it is throughout the Constitution. It is 
also clear from the records of the Framers during the 
Constitutional Convention that they chose their words carefully 
when drafting the text. Nowhere does the context suggest that 
the term ``state'' could be interpreted to mean anything other 
than what it straightforwardly implies. Since the federal 
district is not a state, the plain reading of the text clearly 
precludes the District of Columbia from being considered a 
state for the purposes of choosing members for the House of 
Representatives.
    A basic rule of statutory interpretation is that when a 
reader is interpreting a statute, or in this case the 
Constitution, the statute should be read with the plainest 
reading in context; if no ambiguity appears, the search into 
the meaning of the word is complete. As the U.S. Supreme Court 
stated, ``When the words of a statute are unambiguous, then, 
this first canon is also the last: `judicial inquiry is 
complete.' ``Connecticut Nat'l Bank v. Germain, 503 U.S. 249, 
254 (1992). In the absence of any ambiguity in the term 
``state'' in Article I, Section 2, Congress should not look to 
other places, such as the history of the District or in the 
Federal Enclave Clause, to attempt to justify the 
constitutionality of S. 1257.
    Some supporters of this legislation argue that because the 
Founders placed such a premium on direct voting for 
representation as well as on government powers being derived 
from the consent of the governed, the Founders could not have 
possibly meant to exclude district residents from congressional 
representation simply because the District is not a state. 
However, they have no evidence in the text of the Constitution 
to suggest the Framers intended to treat the District like a 
state under Article I, Section 2. In fact, the evidence points 
in the opposite direction. A Representative of the District 
would not even meet the qualifications set out in Article I, 
Section 2, the Qualifications Clause:

          No person shall be a Representative who shall not 
        have attained to the age of twenty five years, and been 
        seven years a citizen of the United States, and who 
        shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state 
        in which he shall be chosen. (Emphasis added)

    Supporters of S. 1257 misguidedly draw support for their 
position from certain U.S. Supreme Court and other federal 
court cases that extend to the District, as an entity or its 
citizens, other rights found in the Constitution. Nevertheless, 
supporters of the bill cannot refute the fact that the text of 
Article I, Section 2, leaves no open door to treat the District 
as a state for House representation short of actual statehood 
or Constitutional amendment.
    In fact, the provision of the Constitution that supporters 
rely on most, the Federal Enclave Clause, directly contradicts 
any notion that the federal district should be considered a 
state for purposes of House representation.
    The Federal Enclave Clause in Article I, Section 8, Clause 
17 states Congress' rights regarding the federal district:

          To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases 
        whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten miles 
        square) as may, by cession of particular states, and 
        the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the 
        government of the United States, and to exercise like 
        authority over all places purchased by the consent of 
        the legislature of the state in which the same shall 
        be, for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals, 
        dockyards, and other needful buildings. (Emphasis 
        added).

    The Federal Enclave Clause itself shows that the District 
is different than ``states'' in the Constitution. By using both 
the term ``District'' and ``states'' in the same sentence, the 
language shows most clearly that the Framers had two distinct 
concepts in mind regarding what was a state and what was the 
District. To construe this provision to define the word 
``state'' in such a way as to include the federal district is 
to render the words meaningless.
    Finally, supporters of S. 1257 wrongly believe that 
Congress' complete power over the District gives Congress the 
power to alter even the makeup of the House of Representatives. 
In so doing, they create the perverse problem by which one 
provision of the Constitution is used to cancel out the meaning 
of another provision. In other words, supporters have 
interpreted Congress' constitutional powers over the District 
to be so broad that they can use them even to overcome that 
provision which explains the makeup of the House of 
Representatives.
    The text of the Federal Enclave Clause states that Congress 
has ``exclusive'' power ``in all cases whatsoever, over such 
District.'' Nothing in the phrase ``over such District'' or the 
related context allows an interpretation in which Congress 
could change the makeup of Congress. Quite the opposite as the 
text grants to Congress a custodial and operational power of 
control over the District. Thus, the plain reading of this 
provision demonstrates that Congress' power within the District 
itself is nearly unlimited, but that power does not extend 
beyong the District's borders. In fact, if the power given to 
Congress in this provision is as broad as supporters of S. 1257 
claim it is, there would be no limits to how Congress could use 
this power. Nothing could stop Congress from adding additional 
seats to the House for the District as well as representatives 
in the Senate.
    The full context of the Federal Enclave Clause shows that 
the power granted to Congress over the District is the exact 
same power as that granted to Congress to erect ``forts, 
magazines, etc.'' Thus, the supporters of S. 1257 are forced to 
argue that the power of Congress to purchase land for the 
military is the exact same broad, sweeping and ``plenary'' 
power to grant membership in the House of Representatives. 
Therefore, in light of this context, these provisions merely 
grant Congress control over operational matters related to the 
governance, both administrative and political, of the District 
just as it is for forts, needful buildings and arsenals. One 
would need to stretch the rules of interpretation beyond reason 
to interpret this provision in such a way as to grant Congress 
power to alter other more plainly drafted sections of the 
Constitution such as those that determine membership in the 
House of Representatives and the qualifications of its members.

The 23rd amendment

    Passage of the 23rd Amendment to the Constitution is 
illustrative of why S. 1257 falls short of the Constitution. 
Before its passage in 1960, and subsequent ratification, 
District residents could not vote in Presidential elections by 
virtue of the fact that the District is not a state. Congress 
remedied this situation not through legislation, but rather by 
amending the Constitution.
    The 23rd Amendment reads:

          Section 1. The District constituting the seat of 
        government of the United States shall appoint in such 
        manner as the Congress may direct: 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, but in no event more than the least populous 
        state; they shall be in addition to those appointed by 
        the states, but they shall be considered, for the 
        purposes of the election of President and Vice 
        President, to be electors appointed by a state; and 
        they shall meet in the District and perform such duties 
        as provided by the twelfth article of amendment.
          Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce 
        this article by appropriate legislation. (Emphasis 
        added)

    The language clearly establishes that D.C. is not a state 
and that its electors are only for Presidential elections. The 
House Report accompanying the passage of the Amendmentin 1960 
clearly states that the Amendment would not change the status or powers 
of the District:

          [This] . . . amendment would change the Constitution 
        only to the minimum extent necessary to give the 
        District appropriate participation in national 
        elections. It would not make the District of Columbia a 
        State. It would not give the District of Columbia any 
        other attributes of a State or change the 
        constitutional powers of the Congress to legislate with 
        respect to the District of Columbia and to prescribe 
        its form of government. . . . It would, however, 
        perpetuate recognition of the unique status of the 
        District as the seat of Federal Government under the 
        exclusive legislative control of Congress. \13\ 
        (Emphasis added.)

    \13\ Report of the U.S. House of Representatives, 86th Congress, 2d 
Session, May 31, 1960, p.3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The House Report recognizes two important points. First, 
the District is not a state and the 23rd Amendment does nothing 
to make it a state. Second, the House Report affirms the 
understanding that Congress' power in the District Clause is 
one of operational control.
    The example of the 23rd Amendment illustrates clearly that 
when Congress wanted to give residents of the federal district 
the right to vote for the President, they didn't see fit to do 
so through legislation. They knew then what is still true 
today--that such rights can only be conferred on citizens 
through a change in the Constitution through the amendment 
process.

Legal analysis

    Supporters of S. 1257 also stake their claim for the bill's 
constitutionality on a selection of U.S. Supreme Court and 
federal court cases in which Congress has treated the federal 
district's residents the same as residents of states. Examples 
include imposing federal taxation on D.C. residents, allowing 
diversity jurisdiction to apply to D.C. residents, giving D.C. 
residents rights to trial by jury and subjecting D.C. to the 
interstate commerce regulations. Federal courts have allowed 
Congress to treat D.C. as if it were a state in each instance 
in order to uphold the Congressional action. Proponents believe 
that based on this line of cases, future courts will hold that 
granting House representation to D.C. is also a legitimate act 
of Congress' power under the Federal Enclaves Clause. However, 
there is no direct legal precedent for S. 1257, thus it will be 
a case of first impression for federal courts to review.
    In fact, the case law may point in the opposite direction, 
as in Adams v. Clinton. \14\ In 2000, the federal District 
Court of the District of Columbia ruled that D.C. residents 
suffered no Constitutional harm when the District of Columbia 
was excluded from the apportionment of Congressional districts 
for House representation. Lois Adams and other District 
citizens brought their case against President Clinton and the 
Secretary of Commerce because the Administration did not 
include D.C. when they transmitted their post-census 
apportionment results to the House Clerk. The District Court, 
sitting as a special three-judge trial panel, rejected Adams' 
claim 2-1 holding that the District could not be treated as a 
state for purpose of House apportionment and that denial of 
House representation was not a violation of the Equal 
Protection or Republican form of Government Guarantee clauses. 
\15\ The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the holding without an 
opinion, demonstrating that the Constitution does not provide 
representation in Congress for residents of the District.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ Adams v. Clinton, 90 F. Supp. 2d 35 (D.D.C.), aff'd, 531 U.S. 
940 (2000).
    \15\ Id at p. 66-69, and 71-72.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Adams opinion reveals that the understanding of those 
at the time that District residents would lose their right to 
vote once Virginia and Maryland ceded their lands. This would 
be for no other reason than that they no longer lived in a 
state. One Congressman, Rep. Bird, remarked that the blame for 
D.C. residents losing their voting rights was not ``to the men 
who made the act of cession, not to those who accepted it,'' 
but ``to the men who framed the Constitutional provision, who 
peculiarly set apart this as a District'' under the federal 
government. \16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\ Id at p. 52.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In fact, one of the early proponents of D.C. voting rights 
advocated the same position. The Adams opinion recounts that 
Augustus Woodward, a prominent lawyer in the District and 
protege' of Thomas Jefferson, wrote in 1801 decrying the 
violation of ``an original principle of republicanism'' by 
passage of the Organic Act. He later said that passage of a 
Constitutional amendment was ``the exclusive and only remedy.'' 
\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\ Id at p. 53.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Adams opinion likewise debunked the notion that 
Congress actively stripped District residents of their right to 
vote when it passed the Organic Act, officially creating the 
District. The Adams opinion dismissed such theory finding that:

          Thus, it was not the Organic Act or any other 
        cession-related legislation that excluded District 
        residents from the franchise, something we agree could 
        not have been done by legislation alone. \18\ (Emphasis 
        added, citing a previous Supreme Court case holding 
        that an individual's Constitutionally protected right 
        to vote could not be denied by a vote of the state 
        legislature.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\ Id at p. 62.

    Instead the Adams opinion concludes that the loss of voting 
rights for District residents came because their residency 
status had changed from a resident of a ``state'' to resident 
of the District. The citizens were now residents a non-state, 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
and therefore prevented from representation in Congress.

          Rather, exclusion was the consequence of the 
        completion of the cession transaction-which transformed 
        the territory from being part of a state, whose 
        residents were entitled to vote under Article I, to 
        being part of the seat of government, whose residents 
        were not. Although Congress exercise of jurisdiction 
        over the District through passage of the Organic Act 
        was the last step in that process, it was a step 
        expressly contemplated by the Constitution.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\ Id.

    Thus, the Adams opinion points back to the plain meaning of 
Article I, Section 2, as the determinative Constitutional 
provision for considering D.C. voting rights in Congress. until 
D.C. residents achieve status of residents of a state or until 
the Constitution is amended, the residents are barred from 
Congressional representation by the very language of the 
Constitution itself.

Conclusion

    Because the Constitution clearly designed the House of 
Representatives to be composed of representatives of States, we 
believe that S. 1257 is not constitutional. Unfortunately, this 
leaves us with no other option but to oppose the bill and file 
these dissenting views. There is no question, though, that the 
objectives of S. 1257 are noble and worthy of Congressional 
attention, if not prompt action. However, Congress must resist 
the temptation to achieve a worthy policy objective by 
illegitimate means. This is especially true in this case due to 
the ready availability of better, and more clearly 
constitutional means, namely amending the Constitution.
    In closing, we relay this commentary provided to this 
Committee by Professor Jonathan Turley when testifying 
regarding this issue:

          In his famous commentaries on the Constitution, 
        Justice Story warned against the use of the 
        interpretation to avoid unpopular limitations in our 
        constitutional system:
          The constitution of the United States is to receive a 
        reasonable interpretation of its language, and its 
        powers, keeping in view the objects and purposes, for 
        which these powers were conferred. By a reasonable 
        interpretation, we mean, that in case the words are 
        susceptible of two different senses, the one strict, 
        the other more enlarged, that should be adopted, which 
        is most consonant with the apparent objects and intent 
        of the constitution. . . . On the other hand, a rule of 
        equal importance is, not to enlarge the construction of 
        a given power beyond the fair scope of its terms, 
        merely because the restriction is inconvenient, 
        impolitic, or even mischievous. If it be mischievous, 
        the power of redressing the evil lies with the people 
        by an exercise of the power of amendment.''\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\ Testimony of Professor Jonathan Turley before the U.S. Senate 
Judiciary Committee hearing on ``Ending Taxation without 
Representation: The Constitutionality of S. 1257'' May 16, 2007, p. 13-
14 citing Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United 
States Sec. Sec. 419-26, at 298-302 (2d ed. 1851).

                                   Tom Coburn.
                                   Ted Stevens.

                                  
