District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2007

Let me thank the distinguished Speaker, the distinguished chairman of the full committee, and certainly my colleagues who are here, because I believe that there should be a sense of honesty and integrity that is attributed to all of my colleagues, despite their positions on this issue.

I rise today, Mr. Chairman of the full committee, acknowledging that my full statement will be put into the Record. But I really want to engage in a dialogue and a discussion because I am grateful that this committee, looking at Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton's legislation and Congressman Davis' legislation was thoughtful as it relates to the Constitution. And that is what the American people ask us to do: they want us to be thoughtful as it relates to the Constitution; they want us to be fair.

Many people have heard of this as the D.C. Voting bill, but they may not be aware of the provision that deals with Utah, people there who have not had an opportunity to cast their vote, one person-one vote. That is what this is all about. It is a simple question of allowing those who pay taxes, whose blood rains on the front lines around the world for our freedom, to have the constitutional privilege of voting.

Now, you will hear those who oppose suggest that there is a provision in the Constitution that indicates the word ``States,'' and that voting is, if you will, attributable to the word ``States.''

We have already heard the historical perspective, you have already been told to ask the people of Maryland, but there is another constitutional provision. And so you have interpretations that will allow scholars to have a scholarly debate.

The other constitutional provision indicates that this Congress does have the authority to provide, if you will, a balance of power, a sense of fairness to the nonvoting people of the District of Columbia.

I would hope that we, who are constitutionally grounded, a democracy that has lasted now 400 years-plus, would err on the side of giving rights to people who are deserving of those rights, their birthright being that they are American citizens. That is why I come to the floor of the House to challenge and to chime these words: We all are created equal, with certain inalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That is a declaration of independence, and the Constitution says we formed this body to create a more perfect Union. Can we be in a perfect Union if there are citizens of the United States who are not able to cast their vote? I ask my colleagues to consider that, and I ask us to support enthusiastically H.R. 1905, to err on the side of the birthright of American citizens and the right to vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1905, the ``District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2007,'' and thank the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee for his leadership in shepherding this important piece of legislation to the floor. Today we remove a stain that has blighted our Nation for more than 200 years. Today, we vote to end 2 centuries of shame and correct an injustice to the citizens of the District of Columbia.

H.R. 1905 permanently expands the U.S. House of Representatives from 435 to 437 seats, providing a new, at-large seat to Utah and a vote to the District of Columbia. Based on the 2000 Census, Utah is the state next in line to enlarge its Congressional delegation. The bill does not give the District statehood, nor does it give the District representation in the Senate. Rather, in H.R. 1905 Congress is simply treating the District as a Congressional district for the purposes of granting full House representation, as it can pursuant to the grant of plenary power over the District of Columbia conferred by the Constitution in Article I, section 8, clause 17.

At the outset, let me address the claim that H.R. 1905 is a weak foundation upon which to base the District's voting rights in the House because it is a statutory rather than a constitutionally based remedy. The argument should be rejected for the simple reason that it makes the perfect the enemy of the good. It is like asking a person to remain homeless while she saves to buy a house even though she has enough money to rent an apartment.

Mr. Speaker, let us not lose sight of one indisputable and shameful fact: nearly 500,000 people living in the District of Columbia lack direct voting representation in the House of Representatives and Senate. Residents of the District of Columbia serve in the military, pay billions of dollars in Federal taxes each year, and assume other responsibilities of U.S. citizenship. For over 200 years, the District has been denied voting representation in Congress--the entity that has ultimate authority over all aspects of the city's legislative, executive, and judicial functions.

Mr. Speaker, if a person can be called upon to pay Federal taxes and serve in the armed forces of the United States, then he or she should at least have the opportunity to vote for a representative who could at least cast a symbolic vote in this chamber on critical matters facing our Nation. Issues like war and peace, equality and justice.

Mr. Speaker, taxation without representation is tyranny. It is unconscionable that more than a half million American citizens are being unconscionably denied a vote and a voice in the most important legislative body in the world.

As a supporter of freedom, democracy, and equality, I believe that it is long overdue for the citizens of the District of Columbia to have a representative in Congress who can vote on the vital legislation considered in this body.

Mr. Speaker, it is wrong that we must be reminded daily by license plates in the District of Columbia that ``Taxation without representation is tyranny.'' The people in Boston felt so strongly about this in 1775 that they rebelled in Boston Harbor, launching the ``Boston Tea Party.''

The principle that political authority derives from the consent of the government is no less applicable when it comes to the District of Columbia. Let us be clear. There is no dispute that hundreds of thousands of American citizens reside in the District of Columbia. We all agree that universal suffrage is the hallmark of a democratic regime, of which the United States is the world's leading exemplar.

None of us believes it is fair that citizens of the District of Columbia pay Federal taxes, risk life and limb fighting wars abroad to protect American democracy and extend the blessings of liberty to people living in foreign lands. In short, there is no moral reason to deny the citizens of the District of Columbia the right to full representation in Congress. The only question is whether Congress has the will and the constitutional authority to do so. As I will discuss, Congress has always had the constitutional authority. For the last 12 years, we have not had the will; but now we do.

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

Clause

As Professor Dinh argued in his powerful testimony before the Judiciary Committee, Congress has ample constitutional authority to enact H.R. 1905 under the Constitution's ``District Clause.'' Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 17. The District Clause empowers Congress to ``exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District'' and thus grants Congress plenary and exclusive authority to legislate all matters concerning the District. The text, history and structure of the Constitution, as well as judicial decisions and pronouncements in analogous or related contexts, confirms that this broad legislative authority extends to the granting of Congressional voting rights for District residents.

The District Clause, which has been described by no less a constitutional authority as Judge Kenneth Starr as ``majestic in its scope,'' gives Congress plenary and exclusive power to legislate for the District. Courts have held that the District Clause is ``sweeping and inclusive in character'' and gives Congress ``extraordinary and plenary power'' over the District. It empowers Congress to legislate within the District for ``every proper purpose of government.'' Congress therefore possesses ``full and unlimited jurisdiction to provide for the general welfare of citizens within the District of Columbia by any and every act of legislation which it may deem conducive to that end,'' subject, of course, to the negative prohibitions of the Constitution.

Although the District is not a state for purposes of Congress's Article I, section 2, clause 1, which states that members of the House are chosen ``by the people of the several States,'' this fact is not dispositive of Congress's authority under the District Clause to give residents of the District the same rights as citizens of a state. Since 1805, the Supreme Court has recognized that Congress has the authority to treat the District like a state, and Congress has repeatedly exercised this authority. No court has ever sustained a challenge to Congress's exercise of its power under the District Clause.

Two related Supreme Court cases illustrate this point. In Hepburn v. Ellzey, 6 U.S. 445 (1805), the Court held that the diversity jurisdiction provision of Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution excluded citizens of the District of Columbia. The Court observed, however, that it was ``extraordinary'' that residents of the District should be denied the same access to federal courts provided to aliens and state residents, and invited Congress to craft a solution, noting that the matter was ``a subject for legislative, not judicial consideration.''

Congress accepted that invitation 145 years later and enacted legislation that explicitly granted District residents access to federal courts on diversity grounds. That legislation was upheld by the Supreme Court in 1949 in National Mutual Insurance Company v. Tidewater Transfer Company, 337 U.S. 582 (1949). A plurality of the Court led by Justice Jackson held that Congress could for this purpose treat District residents as though they were state residents pursuant to its authority under the District Clause. The two concurring justices would have gone even further; they argued that Hepburn should be overruled and that the District should be considered a state for purposes of Article III.

Tidewater strongly supports Congress's authority to provide the District a House Representative via simple legislation. As the plurality explained, because Congress unquestionably had the greater power to provide District residents diversity-based jurisdiction in special Article I courts, it surely could accomplish the more limited result of granting District residents diversity-based access to existing Article III courts. Similarly, Congress's authority to grant the District full rights of statehood (or grant its residents voting rights through retrocession) by simple legislation suggests that it may, by simple legislatipn, take the more modest step of providing citizens of the District with a voice in the House of Representativ. Indeed, since Congress has granted voting representation to residents of Federal enclaves in Evans v. Cornman, 398 U.S. 419 (1970), and to Americans living abroad through the Overseas Voting Act, there is no reason to suppose that Congress has less ability to provide voting representation to the residents of the Nation's Capital.

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

Representative at Large

H.R. 1905 also grants an additional congressional seat to the State of Utah as the next-entitled state and directs that State to elect its additional Representative at large, rather than creating an additional single-member district. Congress plainly has the authority to do so. This statutory scheme does not violate the ``one person, one vote'' principle.

As the Supreme Court held in Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964), ``the command of Article I, Section 2 [of the Constitution], that Representatives be chosen `by the People of the Several States' means that as nearly as is practicable one man's vote in a congressional election is to be worth as much as another's.'' In that case the Court struck down a Georgia apportionment statute because it created a congressional district that had two-to-three times as many residents as Georgia's 9 other congressional districts. The Court stated:

The apportionment statute thus contracts the value of some

votes and expands that of others. If the Federal Constitution

intends that when qualified voters elect members of Congress

each vote be given as much weight as any other vote, then

this statute cannot stand.

``One person, one vote'' concerns arise when congressional districts within a State contain different numbers of residents, diluting the voting power of residents in the district with more residents. In contrast, here the proposed temporary ``at large'' district in Utah does not dilute the voting power of any Utah voter.

When Utah holds its at large election for the new fourth seat, Utah voters may cast a vote in their existing district and in the State-wide election for the fourth seat. While it is true that the statewide ``at large'' district will necessarily contain more residents than the other districts, the establishment of that ``at large'' district would create no constitutional dilution concerns. Each person's vote in the ``at large'' district would have equal influence, and the opportunity to cast that vote would not alter in any way the value of that person's vote in her own smaller district.

Nor does a potential ``one person, one vote'' challenge arise on the ground that Utah residents vote in two elections while residents of other States with single-member districts would vote only once. First, the Supreme Court has never held that the ``one person, one vote'' principle applies to the apportionment process. Indeed, the Court has held that Congress is entitled to substantial deference in its apportionment decisions. Second, the proposed at large election does not give residents of the State more or less voting power than the residents of States with single-member districts. The example cited by Richard Bress, one of the witnesses who testified before the Judiciary Committee in support of the bill, illustrates why this is so.

Suppose that State A and State B have roughly the same population and are each entitled to four Representatives. State A holds an at-large election for all four of its representatives, while State B divides its Representatives and voters into four districts. State A's state-wide district would have a population four times the size of each district in State B. As compared to the single-district voter in State B, the ``at large'' voter in State A has a one-fourth interest in each of 4 representatives. The single-district voter in State B has a whole interest in one representative. But in both scenarios, each voter has, in the aggregate, one whole voting interest.

Similarly, as compared to a state with four single-member districts, the voters in Utah's existing three districts would have proportionately less Influence In the election of the representative from their own district, but would gain a fractional interest in the State's at-large representative. In short, Utah residents would have no more (and no less) voting power than residents of any other State.

III. Conclusion

For these reasons, I believe H.R. 1905 is constitutionally unassailable. Granting voting rights to the citizens of the District of Columbia is a matter of simple justice. I know it morally right. It is also long overdue. Let us end this injustice and be true to the better angels of our nature. I urge all members to vote to join me in voting for H.R. 1905.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 317 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). All time yielded during the consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous materials into the Record.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 317 provides for consideration of H.R. 1905, the District of Columbia House Voting

Rights Act of 2007, and H.R. 1906, a direct spending offset bill.

Mr. Speaker, this Nation was built upon the principle that it is patently unjust to require free men and women to pay taxes to a government within which they have no direct involvement; a principle so important that the Founding Fathers knew if they were unsuccessful they would become outlaws and probably forfeit their lives.

The fact that approximately 600,000 U.S. citizens live under taxation without representation within the United States today is repugnant to our very notion of democracy. How can the United States deny democracy in its Capital while it promotes democracy abroad?

These citizens pay billions of dollars in Federal taxes, have sacrificed their lives in Iraq and other wars since the American Revolution.

However, when you look at the text of the 16th amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which states, ``The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration,'' you might ask yourself: Since there is no mention of the District of Columbia in this amendment, and it only refers to ``the several States,'' then how is it that D.C. residents are required to pay Federal income taxes?

The answer is that Congress, by statute, specifically, enacted the District of Columbia Income and Franchise Tax Act of 1947, which imposed Federal income taxation on the residents of the District of Columbia.

And when the law was challenged in the courts in 1970 in the case of Breakefield v. D.C., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld both the tax and Congress's constitutional authority to levy it. Further, the Supreme Court later denied even to hear the appeal.

This is taxation without representation at its worst, and it is completely undemocratic. Furthermore, what is clearly evident from the Court's review of Breakefield is that if Congress can levy taxes on D.C. residents without a constitutional amendment, then surely Congress can give D.C. residents a full voting representative within the House of Representatives without a constitutional amendment. This notion that there is a binding precedent for Congress to legislate on all matters related to the District of Columbia is further supported by decisions in such cases as Tidewater, and Adams v. Clinton.

Our actions today would correct this injustice by granting the citizens of our Nation's Capital a full voting representative in the House of Representatives.

Some of my colleagues have suggested that the D.C. House Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional and that we in Congress will be acting outside the power enacting this bill. This is not true. Article I, section 8 of the Constitution clearly enumerates the powers of Congress. And among the powers listed, article I, section 8 states that Congress shall have the power to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over the District of Columbia. Article I, section 8 also gives Congress the power ``to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper'' to execute the enumerated powers.

Further, in 1790, Congress passed the Residence Act, giving residents of the new District of Columbia the right to vote. Since the Capital was still being established, citizens were allowed to continue voting in their States, Maryland and Virginia. Congress then took that right away by statute in 1800 when the Federal Government assumed control of the District. In the political battles that followed, District residents were denied a vote in Congress. Now, certainly, if Congress can grant the right and then remove that right by statute, so too can it reinstate the right by statute if it so chooses.

In the landmark Supreme Court case McCulloch v. Maryland, Chief Justice John Marshall said: ``Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the Constitution, and all means which are appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited but consistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, they are constitutional.''

Extending full representation in the House to residents of the District of Columbia is a legitimate end. It is within the scope of Congress' power to exercise exclusive legislation in matters concerning the District of Columbia and consistent with not only the letter of the Constitution, but also the spirit in which the Constitution was written by the Founding Fathers, that ``taxation without representation is tyranny.''

Too much time has passed. Every day that we fail to act is one more day that we deny democracy. It is time to correct this grave injustice and provide the citizens of the District of Columbia the same rights afforded to every other citizen in this great Nation. Our actions today will do just that.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments, but I could not disagree with him more.

First of all, this bill does not attempt to create statehood for the District of Columbia. In fact, as I said just a few moments ago, the legislation that has been passed in prior occasions, the one, in fact, with respect to requiring residents of the District of Columbia to pay income tax, despite the fact that the 16th amendment says that it is for the residents of the States, indicates very clearly that the District of Columbia is not a State and, rather, that Congress has the authority and the ability to make legislation with respect to the District of Columbia. In the Tidewater case, again Congress came forward and said that diversity jurisdiction applies to the District of Columbia even though it is not a State, and clearly that was upheld by the Supreme Court.

So this is not without precedent. This is something that Congress has done in the past because under article I, section 8, they have exclusive jurisdiction over the District of Columbia.

A couple of other points that I just would like to respond to. My colleague said that the majority just won't listen to reason, and I can't help but think that maybe that is what was said about the Founding Fathers by the members of parliament, that the people in America just won't listen to reason. How dare they talk about being represented just because we tax them?

This issue is critical. We tax the people in the District of Columbia. They are citizens of the United States. They fight and they die in our wars. They should be able to have a voting Member in Congress.

He also said that the majority has sunk to an all-time low. I am very troubled by that. If giving the right to vote to Americans, giving the right to vote to people who live here in the District of Columbia, in our capital, is sinking to an all-time low, then that is where I want to be, because clearly that is what we should be doing. We spend billions of dollars in other places in the world to ensure that citizens in other places in the world have the right to vote. We certainly should be able to do that here in our own country.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton).

The rule contains two motions to recommit, one for each bill.

If either bill is not passed, then both bills are defeated.

Will the gentleman yield?

Thank you, sir.

This rule ensures that neither of the two bills can achieve passage in the House without being subject to a motion to recommit. Now, you talk about fairness. My colleague talks about fairness, and he believes in fairness as we all do. But that is what this bill is about; this bill is about fairness.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague, again, talks about fairness, and fairness is why we are here today.

He talks about what we are trying to do today. What we are trying to do is give the residents of the District of Columbia their long overdue right to vote. That is why we are here today. The procedure that we are following is fair, it is just, and the important thing for us to remember is why we are here, and that is to give the right to vote to the residents of the District of Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 9 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Agreed.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Texas and my colleagues on the Rules Committee for their spirited debate in this issue. I would also like to thank my distinguished colleague from the District of Columbia for her leadership on this issue and her passion. She has shown such incredible focus in terms of what she feels and what she believes, and it is contagious and I commend her for it.

This is an issue that is not only important to the residents to the District of Columbia, but it is important for the residents of the entire country because it is about giving the right to vote to people who deserve it. And that is what our country was founded on and that is what we are all about.

In my closing, I would just like to mention several points that were discussed in the previous debate, and one of them was brought up by my colleague from North Carolina. And I am troubled by the fact that he is attempting to talk about power grabs and talking about turning this issue into a political issue. This is not a political issue. It never has been. That is what the American people don't want out of their Congress. They want debate on issues that are important to the people.

This is something that is important to all of America. It is important to the residents of Utah, and it is important to the residents of the District of Columbia. It is not about a power grab. It is not about politics. And that is what the American people don't want to hear their Representatives in Congress talking about. They want to hear about why we support a bill. And the reason that this bill is important, the reason that this bill is critical is because it is constitutional.

My colleague from Texas said that the end doesn't justify the means, and I agree with him; the end cannot justify the means. This bill is not about that. This bill is clearly constitutional.

And I remind my colleague from North Carolina that if he looks at why Congress originally set up the District of Columbia, it was because the capital was in Philadelphia, and they were not able to do the kinds of things in Philadelphia that they wanted to because Pennsylvania was a sovereign State and they couldn't tell the State of Pennsylvania what they wanted done. So they came upon this idea to create a district, a district which they would have control over. That is why the District of Columbia was set up. That is why we are debating this bill today.

I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is, as I said, about fairness. They are talking about everything but what is important. They are talking about every fact except the important fact, and that is that this bill is about giving the right to vote to citizens of the United States. That is what is important.

Nearly 600,000 citizens of Washington, D.C. have waited far too long for equal representation in this Chamber. They have sacrificed their lives defending this great Nation and paid their fair share of taxes. We have an opportunity to correct this grave injustice and provide to the citizens of our Nation's Capital the most important right of all, and that is the full right to vote.

I want to commend again the Delegate from Washington (Ms. Norton) for her tireless efforts that have brought us here for this historic day. It is this type of passion and commitment that further strengthens our democracy. I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank the gentleman for his strong advocacy for the rights of all Americans.

I must begin by saying when you hear people come to the floor and invoke the word ``fairness'' in a debate where they oppose the basic right to vote, they drain that word of all of its meaning.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to the rule proper. I would like to offer some thanks during this rule period. And I would like to say a word about Utah, our very strong partner about whom we hear little because they are so far away.

The other side, after the last vote on this bill, clucked that they had actually stopped our people in the Nation's Capital from getting a vote. Imagine how that was received all around the world. Now they come to the floor with the nerve to object to the procedure.

Mind you, the substance is really what they are after. If in fact the District of Columbia was a largely Republican city, these Members would be on the floor arguing for voting rights for the District of Columbia just as the radical Republican abolitionists gave us the vote, which was then taken from us, and gave us home rule.

I will not yield, sir. The District of Columbia has spent 206 years yielding to people who would deny them the vote. I yield you no ground, not during my time. You have had your say, and your say has been that you think that the people who live in your capital are not entitled to a vote in their House. Shame on you.

Then they want an open rule. They want an open rule so they can deny the vote. The American people will have nothing but praise for the Democratic leadership because the Democratic leaders have found a way to observe two cardinal principles, the principle most basic of all, the right to vote, yes, the principle of fiscal responsibility.

Now, the Democrats could never have thrown the foul ball that was used to delay this bill, and the reason is, of course, that the other side spent 12 years building a deficit and didn't observe the PAYGO rule, and so there would have been no germaneness issue. I don't think that was so smart.

The bill was open to an outrageous attempt to repeal our gun laws. We are a free people. We are entitled to have the same jurisdiction over our gun laws they have, and we are going to insist on it. And the Democratic leaders did not bow to that trick. Instead, they went back and found a way to keep to the principle of finally paying for what we do, as you should have done for more than 10 years.

I would be glad to do it. If the Member doesn't want to face me face to face, I will address the Speaker, you will get the point.

Mr. Speaker, for more than 4 years, thousands of Americans and others around the world have sought this bill and contributed ideas, time and effort, beginning with Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who added to her long and unequivocal push for full rights for District citizens, her personal attention and intervention when it counted most to move this bill forward. And majority leader Steny Hoyer, whose outspoken dedication to our rights overcame procedural malevolence to bring today's bill forward. However, the idea originally came from the Republican side. When I was in the minority, moved by his personal sense of right and wrong, Congressman Tom Davis smartly and doggedly started us down the bipartisan path to equal votes for the District and for Utah.

Judiciary Committee Chair John Conyers, since his election in 1964, has robustly argued that rights for D.C. residents must match their burdens. Henry Waxman, first as ranking member, now as Chair, began leading a principled effort for equal rights for D.C. citizens long before I was elected to Congress.

Utah Governor John Huntsman, and the Utah delegation, Representatives Bishop, Cannon and Matheson, forged a unique partnership on their understanding that Utah and D.C. residents felt the same sense of loss and should obtain these precious rights together.

The local and national civil rights organizations formed themselves into a formidable D.C. voting rights coalition, led by D.C. Vote, which gave the effort, organizational know-how and boundless dedication, and the Leadership Conference for Civil Rights, which has carried D.C. voting rights as a major civil rights cause for decades.

The official international human rights entities abroad have gone on record to ask the United States of America to conform with international law by granting voting rights to the citizens of its capital. My own colleagues of both parties, who passed this bill in committees by overwhelming votes, 29-4, 24-5 and 21-13, especially my Republican colleagues, have joined this effort for the District of Columbia and for Utah out of principle.

The District of Columbia's four home rule mayors and city councils, particularly current Mayor Adrian Fenty and City Council Chair Vincent Gray, and, most especially, the residents of this city, living and dead, have fought for equal citizenship over the ages.

Today, we will get the vote I predict, at least in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I give great praise to a State which is the most Republican State in the Union for having unabashedly and continuously joined with us out of a deep sense of grievance of its own, that its missionaries, temporarily abroad in the service of their church, were not counted in the last census, and, thus, the State was deprived of a seat that they believed they were entitled to.

I would like to quote Governor John Huntsman, the Governor of the State, who came and said, ``I have not extensively studied the constitutionality of the D.C. House Voting Rights Act, but I am impressed and persuaded by the scholarship represented. The people of Utah have expressed outrage over the loss of one congressional seat for the last 6 years. I share their outrage. I can't imagine what it must be like for American citizens to have no representation for over 200 years.''

We will pass this bill today. We will put it in the hands of two Republican Senators from Utah, Senators Hatch and Bennett, and there I believe it will fare well, because the people of Utah want this vote, their vote, as much as we want our vote.

I ask, in testament to that, that two editorials from the Salt Lake Tribune be included for the Record.

[From the Salt Lake Tribune, Mar. 13, 2007]

Utah's 4th Seat: One Quibble Aside, New Bill Would Do the Right Thing

It's back. A bill before Congress would give the District

of Columbia its first voting member of the House of

Representatives and Utah its fourth seat in that body. We

favor it because Utah's rapidly growing population is

entitled to a fourth seat. There are things about the bill

that could be better, but the overriding principles are

right. The 600,000 people of the District of Columbia have a

delegate in the House but she cannot vote on the floor,

That's a cruel irony in a nation that fancies itself a beacon

of republican democracy.

That situation is an accident of constitutional history.

The founders fashioned D.C. so that no state would have the

advantage of being the seat of the federal government. But it

is the states, under the Constitution's language, that elect

U.S. representatives and senators. For more than 200 years,

that circumstance has denied the people of D.C. votes in

Congress.

This bill would rectify that by treating D.C. as a

congressional district for purposes of representation in the

House. At the same time, it would increase the membership of

the House from 435 to 437. One seat would go to D.C. The

second would go to the next state in line for another seat

because of population growth, i.e., Utah. The reason for this

second provision is to preserve the existing partisan balance

in the House. D.C. presumably will elect a Democrat. Utah

presumably will elect a Republican.

Our major quibble with the bill, H.R. 1433, is that it

would have Utah elect its new member-at-large, that is,

statewide, rather than by congressional district, until after

the 2010 census and reapportionment. We believe that is a

mistake because it would allow every Utah voter to vote for

two members of the House while every other voter in the U.S.

could vote for only one.

Besides, the Utah Legislature last year created four equal

congressional districts in anticipation of an earlier version

of this bill which failed in the last Congress.

The at-large proposal would spare Utah's sitting members of

the House from running in special elections to fill the four

new seats. While that is a real hardship in terms of

fundraising, it would be worthwhile to preserve the principle

of equal representation.

The quibble: The bill would have Utah elect its new member

at large, that is, state-wide, rather than by congressional

district, until after the 2010 census and reapportionment.

Mr. Speaker will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I respect the gentleman, who indeed has, as always, given me and the city respect, and I know he understands what it must be like to be in the Congress for 17 years and come to the floor and see people debating your budget and your laws and you can't even vote on them.

I appreciate that the gentleman came to the floor on procedural matters. If the differences between the gentleman and me are on procedure, would not the better side of valor be to allow people on both sides to understand that you favor voting rights; and if your problem is constitutionality, I am sure the gentleman will understand that there is a third branch of government who can decide this matter for us both, particularly since he concedes that opinion on the constitutional question is divided.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman argues about an unprecedented procedure. What about the unprecedented procedure that the other side used to delay this bill, sending the message around the world to delay this bill when it was delayed the last time?

This procedure is legal. Therefore, if you want to use procedure to stop the bill, you should say so. The fact is you have raised a constitutional point. You are not a constitutional scholar, and no Member of this House is, even I, who was a constitutional lawyer.

Therefore, when in doubt about something as precious as the right to vote, when the people we are talking about have paid taxes and have gone to war since the birth of the Republic, surely we should err on the side of encouraging everybody to vote for the bill, send it to the Senate, and let the one institution that can decide constitutional questions, the Supreme Court, make that decision.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Reclaiming my time, it is certainly true that the vote was delayed and it was legal to delay it. By delaying the vote, do you know what the leaders of this House did? They saved the reputation of this House throughout the world. No one knows what would have happened. But no vote on guns occurred.

You don't know what would have happened.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

I can understand why the Members on that side don't want to be spoken to directly.

Nobody knows what would have been the result of that vote. The least of all who know is the other side.

One thing we do know is that it was a perversion. It would have been a perversion to even allow a vote about guns, a vote about guns that would have deprived the District of its own right to decide the issue in order to decide whether it should have a vote.

The decision therefore to pull the bill was legal and the delay saved the principle that we should be voting on one basic right, the basic right that is before us today in the House Voting Rights Act.

I will support that, if the gentleman will support this bill by voting for it on the floor.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Has he agreed therefore to support the bill when in fact the vote is taken?

When the Constitution was written, first of all, Senators weren't popularly elected; they were appointed, not elected, number one. Number two, when the Constitution was written there was a 10-year period during which the District essentially had all the same rights it had always had because the Framers guaranteed to Maryland and Virginia they would not lose those rights. So when the seat moved over and it became the jurisdiction of the Congress, only the Congress could fulfill the mandate now that the city was under its jurisdiction to grant the city the right to vote.

We are asking for the right to vote only in the House. And the Senate, somebody would have had to appoint Senators at the time. So that could not have been done.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 317, I call up the bill (H.R. 1905) to provide for the treatment of the District of Columbia as a Congressional district for purposes of representation in the House of Representatives, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 1905, the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2007.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin the debate on this measure by yielding myself as much time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, this past Monday on April 16, Emancipation Day, District of Columbia residents and others gathered by the thousands at Freedom Plaza and marched to the Capitol, calling on Congress to ``demand the vote.''

On that day in 1862, President Abraham Lincoln signed the District of Columbia Compensated Emancipation Act, freeing approximately 3,100 men, women and children who were held in bondage. That was several months before, of course, President Lincoln's issue of the Emancipation Proclamation on New Year's Day, 1863.

I stand before my colleagues in the House today and cannot help but note that the District of Columbia was the starting point for the Emancipation President, as he was called, but it still does not have the full voting franchise that is at the heart of U.S. citizenship. This hardly seems right, and we have come today, assembled again to correct this.

Monday's marchers sent a message to Congress: District residents have had enough of ``taxation without representation.'' That is a message that all Americans and all students of American history should understand. District residents just want what Americans elsewhere enjoy: a full share in American democracy.

This simple but compelling message has reached Congress, and today we are acting on it. Today we will do our part to correct a 200-year-old injustice. We have a constitutionally sound, bipartisan, politically balanced response that will give, at last, citizens of the District of Columbia full representation in the House.

The United States is the only democracy in the world, ladies and gentlemen, where citizens living in the capital city are denied representation in their legislature. Almost 600,000 people who call the District of Columbia home, who pay taxes, go off to war, and observe the other responsibilities of citizenship still do not have a vote in the Congress.

At Monday's march, we heard from a District of Columbia veteran who was one of the first soldiers sent to Iraq in March, 2003, and as a dual citizen of the United States and Iraq, he can participate fully in the Iraqi democratic process which includes electing voting members of the Iraqi National Legislature, but as a resident of the District of Columbia, his rights as a U.S. citizen are limited.

Well, his day has come, as well as for that of all of the citizens of this great District of Columbia. I hope that we can move this debate through as efficiently and as effectively as possible, and move toward a finish of a job that we have undertaken in more than one Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure now to yield 1 minute to the distinguished Speaker of the House of Representatives, Ms. Nancy Pelosi.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to add 2 minutes on to Mr. Davis' allotted time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to turn now to the chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Jerry Nadler of New York, and recognize him for 3 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Alabama, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Ladies and gentlemen, we have here a very interesting constitutional question. My good friend and distinguished member of the Judiciary Committee I think has raised four, maybe five points that disturb him greatly, but the main one is that it is unconstitutional. The point of the matter is that there are those who think it is constitutional and those who think it is unconstitutional. Can't we let the courts decide this besides 435 great lawyers working on this?

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Artur Davis.

Mr. Speaker, we are pleased to have on our Judiciary Committee the gentleman from Georgia, the distinguished lawyer and judge, Hank Johnson, to whom I yield 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 1 minute to the Delegate from the District of Columbia, Eleanor Holmes Norton.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure now to yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from Houston, Texas, Sheila Jackson-Lee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to recognize a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, Maxine Waters of California, for 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, did the gentleman from Indiana desire 2 minutes from our side?

I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

(Mr. MORAN of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn) for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request.

(Mr. WYNN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished majority leader, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

(Mr. HOYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to my colleague from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) for a unanimous consent request.

(Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlelady from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown) for a unanimous consent request.

(Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield now to a member of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Steve Cohen of Tennessee, for 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 1 minute to Danny Davis, the distinguished Member of Congress from Illinois.

Mr. Speaker, it is now time for us to hear the Delegate from the District of Columbia. I am honored to yield to Eleanor Holmes Norton 5 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time remaining on our side.

I begin by commending my colleagues in the Congress on the debate that has occurred today. It has been civil, it has been honest, and the disagreements, both constitutionally and otherwise, have been very clearly spread upon the record.

And why is that so? Well, because we had the same debate 27 days ago. That is why. We have all been through this for every argument, for every constitutional expert opinion that is regularly volunteered.

And, look, I have articulated my belief that a measure that we are debating is unconstitutional as frequently as anybody on the other side. I don't know what our collective batting averages of being accurate are, but that is for the courts to decide, and I think that we all agree to that.

The District of Columbia residents want no more than what the Founding Fathers wanted. And, by the way, for those who wonder why we didn't make them a State right off the bat, at that time there may have been 150 people living in this swampy area that is now known as D.C. We didn't have anybody to make citizens.

So join me, join us in this historic moment and pass the bill. It is high time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to commend my friend from Texas (Mr. Smith). His arguments are cogent and our relationship on the committee is excellent.

But I must comment as to the argument that our bill allows the District of Columbia to have both a Representative and a Delegate. We fully intend to

repeal the Delegate part of it by separate statute as soon as we get the bill that will allow the District to have a Representative.

We have had lots of debate, and he has quoted Professor Turley, who has made the most extreme statement, his personal beliefs. And we invited him as a panelist, but he has been profoundly in the minority on a number of other issues as well. So I do not regard his opinion as having any more or less importance or significance than any of the other constitutional experts that we heard.

Now, here is the problem. We would, if this motion to recommit were passed, provide for two things: expedited review of this matter and standing to all Members of Congress to challenge the constitutionality of the bill before us. Four hundred thirty-five Members would be granted standing. Why? Are there not enough constitutional lawyers and supporters and opponents on both sides to take care of this matter, rather than to have the Supreme Court filled with Members of Congress wanting to vent probably very repetitious views?

This is a motion based on an amendment which has been debated and defeated in the Judiciary Committee when we considered an earlier version of this bill only weeks ago.

Now, I recognize and appreciate that the motion is being offered in good faith to amend the bill. However, as I have stated before, it is my concern that this recommit motion will do far more harm than it could ever cause good.

I am concerned that the motion puts Congress down on record as believing that the bill is constitutionally weak. It is not, and therefore, I cannot support a motion to recommit that would make this concession. Nothing could be further from the truth.

We have had hearings on top of hearings from everyone who claimed to be a constitutional expert on this subject anywhere in the Judiciary Committee. We have heard from everybody on both sides of the aisle over the last several Congresses, and based on the record, there is ample precedent for the Congress, using the District clause as authority for this legislation as they have for taxes, for diversity, for labor and numerous other matters. Clearly, this bill falls within the general line of authority.

Now, concerning expedited judicial review in this motion, the courts are perfectly capable of handling the issue. There are judicial standards for dealing with expedited review, namely, when there is a showing of irreparable harm. Nobody has mentioned that as a reason for having expedited review. Irreparable harm coming and giving the Delegate of this District the right to vote? We have statutes on the books that cover this very issue already.

We did not provide expedited review of such controversial laws as the PATRIOT Act, parts of which have actually been held, subsequently, unconstitutional. Yet, the issue was readily dealt with by the courts.

The courts will readily deal with this issue as well. And I am strongly opposed to the idea of Congress passing laws that confer unique standing on themselves or special rights to intervene in pending lawsuits.

You can always become amicus curiae, and so for those reasons and others, I urge that this motion to recommit be turned down.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, last month the House considered a similar piece of legislation. As has become the Democrats' antidemocratic custom, no amendments were allowed. The language of the bill was changed hours before it came to the House floor, and Republicans were allowed only a motion to recommit.

Today, we are back again to consider legislation to unconstitutionally give D.C. residents a voting representative in Congress. Since the wording of the legislation has been changed without approval by the committee of jurisdiction, we will not have an opportunity to give D.C. residents the right to possess weapons to protect themselves and their families. And the reason we cannot give them that right is the same reason the bill was withdrawn last month: The Democratic leadership is afraid Congress would approve it.

It is a shame that a bill that supposedly supports democracy is being brought up in such an undemocratic manner. The majority waived its own rules and will pass a separate tax increase, all to ram through the House an unconstitutional bill they rewrote at the 11th hour with no amendments allowed.

At the Judiciary Committee hearing on this bill, Professor Jonathan Turley, someone the majority consults frequently for his views, said: ``Permit me to be blunt. I consider this act to be the most premeditated, unconstitutional act by Congress in decades.''

This legislation was constitutionally suspect last month and it is constitutionally suspect today. The Constitution explicitly says that Members of Congress can only be elected by people who live in States. Article I section 2 reads, ``The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second year by the people of the several States.''

Judges and legal experts agree that since D.C. is not a State, it cannot elect Members of Congress. In fact, a Federal district judge here in D.C. already has spoken on this point stating clearly, ``We conclude from our analysis of the text that the Constitution does not contemplate that the District may serve as a State for purposes of the apportionment of congressional representatives.''

And the House Judiciary Committee also has spoken on this point. When the House Judiciary Committee under the leadership of Democratic Chairman Peter Rodino in the 95th Congress reported out a constitutional amendment to do what this bill purports to be able to do by statute, the report stated, ``If the citizens of the District are to have voting representation in the Congress, a constitutional amendment is essential. Statutory action alone will not suffice.'' So what is being attempted with the legislation before us today is something long recognized as requiring a constitutional amendment.

Further, this bill unfairly subjects many citizens to unequal treatment. It grants Utah an additional Representative who will run at- large or statewide rather than in the individual district provided for in the redistricting plan the Utah legislature passed last year. The at-large provision creates a situation this country has not seen since the development of the Supreme Court's line of cases affirming the principle of one man, one vote.

Under this provision, voters in Utah would be able to vote for two Representatives, their own district Representative and their at-large Representative, whereas voters in every other State would only be able to vote for their one district Representative. The result would be that Utah voters would have more voting power than the voters of every other State.

The new bill the majority drafted at the 11th hour even fails to strike the current position of the Delegate that represents Washington, D.C. Currently, that delegate can vote in committee. So this bill not only grants voters in Utah two voting Members when every other voter only gets one, but also gives District voters two votes in committee, one vote for the D.C. Delegate and one vote for the new D.C. Member of Congress. Congratulations to Utah and D.C. voters.

Some feel sincerely that the Constitution can be pulled and stretched a

little and interpreted otherwise, but at least we can agree that it is by no means certain that the bill is constitutional. What is certain is that congressional voting for D.C. residents could be obtained by a constitutional amendment.

In 1978, Congress approved such a constitutional amendment, but only 16 of the 38 States necessary ratified it. As I mentioned, at the time the Democratic chairman of the Judiciary Committee said the only legitimate way to give D.C. residents the right to vote in Federal elections was a constitutional amendment as opposed to this kind of legislation.

Why is that process being ignored now? Is it because of the fear of failure again?

Like many Members of Congress, I favor giving D.C. residents the right to vote for Members of the House and the Senate; but this bill doesn't do that. It limits D.C. residents to voting only for House Members. This bill does not allow D.C. residents to vote for Senators. Why are we considering a bill that gives D.C. residents only half their rights? Isn't that ``taxation without representation''? Or maybe it is ``taxation with half-representation.'' Maybe we should refund D.C. residents half their taxes if this bill passes.

There is a solution, and it treats the residents of D.C. better than this bill. It is constitutional. It is more likely to succeed in a constitutional amendment, and it will give D.C. residents the right to vote for both House Members and Senators.

D.C. was originally carved out of Maryland. If D.C. were given back to Maryland, except for the Capitol and some Federal buildings, D.C. residents would be residents of a State and have the same voting rights. It has been done before. That part of D.C. that was once part of Virginia was returned to Virginia in 1846, so the precedent is there. Such legislation would only require a majority vote in Congress and in the Maryland legislature. Both are controlled by the Democratic Party.

Why are we waiting? Why not the best for D.C. residents? Why are we spending time on a bill that is constitutionally suspect and would be challenged in court? Why are we not acting now to return the District to Maryland and assure D.C. residents the right to vote in all Federal elections as quickly as possible?

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to my friend and colleague from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte) who is the ranking member of the House Agriculture Committee and also a senior member of the Judiciary Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

I am in its current form.

Mr. Speaker, let me be clear. Any Member who votes for this bill is voting to grant D.C. residents more voting power in the House of Representatives than any of their own constituents now enjoy. That is because this latest version of the bill fails to eliminate the position of D.C. Delegate.

The D.C. Delegate can, of course, vote in committee, which means that if this bill passes, D.C. residents will have two votes in committee and one on the House floor. That would give D.C. residents more voting power in the House than any other voter in the country. That is obviously unfair, and I think we all know it.

Mr. Speaker, this motion to recommit simply requires expedited judicial review of the constitutionality of the bill's provision. I believe this legislation is unconstitutional and will produce significant legal and electoral turmoil if enacted. So it is critical that the motion to recommit be adopted to ensure that if the bill violates the Constitution, that unconstitutional action will not be prolonged.

This motion to recommit constitutes the very same expedited judicial review provision Congress agreed was appropriate, on a bipartisan basis, in the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law. That provision was successfully employed to facilitate the Supreme Court's expeditious review of that legislation.

Opponents might claim that an expedited review of the legislation would already be provided by 28 U.S.C. sections 2284 and 1253, but that is very far from clear. 28 U.S.C. section 2284 only applies to ``actions filed challenging the constitutionality of an apportionment of a congressional district over the apportionment of any statewide legislative body.'' The creation of a new House Member to represent a non-State constitutes neither an apportionment nor something relating to a statewide legislative body. The 14th amendment itself makes clear that apportionment is a concept that only applies to States.

Also, nothing in 28 U.S.C. section 1253 requires the Supreme Court to ever hear the case, and absent a statutory requirement, the Supreme Court retains the discretion regarding whether and when to a hear a case.

In contrast, the motion to recommit requires that the case be brought in the District of Columbia before a three-judge Federal district court with direct appeal to the Supreme Court. The motion to recommit provides that ``It shall be the duty of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and the Supreme Court of the United States to advance on the docket and to expedite to the greatest possible extent the disposition of the action and appeal.''

Professor Jonathan Turley, someone the majority consults frequently for his views, said in his testimony offered at the Judiciary Committee's hearing on the first of three versions of this bill that were introduced, ``Permit me to be blunt, I consider this act to be the most premeditated unconstitutional act by Congress in decades.''

As Professor Turley also pointed out, the inevitable legal challenge to this bill could produce legislative chaos. With a relatively close party division in the House, the casting of a determinative vote subsequently held invalid by a court could throw the validity of pieces of future legislation into question.

There is no reason to stall a judicial resolution of these important issues, especially when doing so risks legislative chaos regarding the validity of future legislation passed by the House.

Mr. Speaker, if supporters of H.R. 1905 believe the bill is constitutional, and I know they do, they should want to get that constitutionality established by the Supreme Court as soon as possible. Likewise, we should all want to shorten the time that the Representatives created under this bill would serve, if they are, in fact, declared unconstitutional.

The bill is either constitutional or it is not. Let's adopt this motion to ensure that question is resolved expeditiously and to prevent as much uncertainty as possible.

I encourage my colleagues to support this motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.