District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2007

Mr. President, I rise today with my colleague from Utah, Senator Hatch, to introduce bipartisan legislation that I believe is the breakthrough we have been searching for to bring House voting representation to the residents of the District of Columbia, who have historically been denied this fundamental birthright.

I am proud to join with, DC Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton and Representative Tom Davis, and the many others from both parties and both houses who have worked without rest to remedy the disenfranchisement of District residents since the capital was established in Washington in 1800. I especially want to thank my friend Senator Hatch for his influential support of this voting rights proposal, which would bring to an end a gross inconsistency with the founding principles of our Nation.

Mr. President, we have a historic opportunity today to finally bestow upon the citizens of the District of Columbia the civic entitlement every other tax-paying American citizen enjoys no matter where he or she resides, democracy's most essential right, voting representation in Congress.

The bill is simple. It would increase the number of voting representatives in the House from 435 to 437 by providing the District with a voting representative and by adding another congressional seat for Utah, the next State in line to increase its representation based on the 2000 Census.

Working cooperatively in the spirit of service to the people of Washington, DC, and Utah, Congresswoman Norton and Congressman Davis shepherded a similar proposal through the House Government Reform Committee on March 13 by a vote of 24-5. The full House approved the measure April 20 by a vote of 241-177, a historic day unlike any other since 1978 when Congress approved a constitutional amendment to give District residents voting rights in the House and Senate. Of course, that amendment came to naught when too few States ratified it.

The people of this city have waited far too long for this right. They have been the direct target of terrorist attacks, and yet they have no representative to vote in Congress on policies to protect their homeland security. Citizens of Washington, DC, pay income taxes just like everyone else. In fact, they pay more: Per capita, District residents have the second highest Federal tax obligation. And yet they have no voice in how high those taxes will be or how they will be spent. The District is also the only jurisdiction in the country that must seek congressional approval, through the appropriations process, before spending locally-generated tax dollars. When Congress fails to pass appropriations bills before the beginning of the fiscal year, the District's budget is essentially frozen. And yet DC has no say in that appropriations process.

DC residents fight and die for our democracy but they cannot participate fully in it. I ask you, how can we effectively promote democracy abroad while denying it to hundreds of thousands of citizens in our Nation's Capital?

There is no good reason why DC residents have been denied congressional representation. In 1800, when the nation's capital was established as the District of Columbia, an oversight left the area's residents without congressional representation. Maryland and Virginia ceded land for the capitol in 1788 and 1789, respectively, but it took another 10 years for Congress to establish the District of Columbia. In the interim, residents continued to vote either in Maryland or Virginia, but Congress withdrew those voting rights once the District was founded. Unfortunately, apparently by omission, Congress neglected to establish new voting rights for the citizens of the new district.

The right to be counted, to have your voice heard by your government is central to a functioning democracy and fundamental to a free society. If we are willing to sacrifice our young men and women in the name of freedom, we must be willing to protect their freedoms as well. This legislation would do just that.

In 2002, 10 cosponsors and I introduced the No Taxation without Representation Act. I held a hearing on the bill in the Governmental Affairs Committee, which I then chaired. It was the first hearing in Congress on DC voting rights since 1994. We reported the bill out of committee, but the Senate never took action on it.

Today, the tide has changed. Members from both parties have come together to find a solution to break the stalemates of the past that have denied DC residents equal representation in Congress. The State of Utah has united in favor of a fourth congressional seat, and Senator Hatch has lent his considerable support to this effort. Mr. President, this legislation represents an uncommon victory for fairness and a rare but hopefully increasingly more common example of what we can do if we work together to accomplish our mutual goals.

The essence of our work in the legislative branch is compromise, and the compromise reached by Senator Hatch

and I will bring partial voting representation to the District while ensuring Utah receives the additional representation it is due.

I know there are those who believe this bill is unconstitutional. But the District clause of the Constitution, which gives Congress the power to legislate ``in all cases whatsoever'' pertaining to the District, provides ample authority for the legislative branch to give DC residents voting rights.

Mr. President, this is our moment to do right here at home, just as we have done throughout our history for our democratic allies abroad. By giving the citizens of the District of Columbia a vote in the House, we will ensure not only that their voices will finally be heard. We will be following the imperative of our history and moral values. The Framers of our Constitution in effect placed with Congress the solemn responsibility of assuring that the rights of DC citizens would be protected in the future, just as it is our responsibility to protect the rights of all citizens throughout this great country. Congress has failed to meet this obligation for more than 200 years, and I am not prepared to make DC citizens wait another 200 years.

Mr. President, the tax-paying citizens of the District of Columbia have been without congressional voting representation for too long. The House has acted. Now it is time for the Senate to act. I urge my colleagues to join Senator Hatch and me in support of this essential legislation.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the text of the bill be printed in the Record.

Mr. President, I rise today to join with Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Chairman Joseph Lieberman and Senator Robert Bennett in introducing the District of Columbia Voting House Rights Act of 2007. Our colleagues in the House of Representatives recently passed similar legislation, H.R. 1905, that would provide a fourth congressional seat for my home state of Utah and the first voting member for the District of Columbia. No doubt, this is a historic time for the citizens of the District of Columbia and a unique opportunity for Utah to receive a long overdue fourth congressional seat.

The Founding Fathers made clear in article 1, section 8 of the Constitution that the District of Columbia would be the seat of the national government and granted Congress the power ``[t]o 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 . . .'' This clause became effective in 1790 when Congress accepted land that Maryland and Virginia ceded to the United States to create the national capital. Ten years later, in December 1800, jurisdiction over the District of Columbia was vested in the Federal Government. Since then, District residents have not had the right to vote for Members of Congress. Additionally, article 1, section 2 and section 3 of the Constitution provides that citizens of States shall have voting representation in the House and Senate.

During my time in the Senate, I have heard from many District residents who believe strongly that their voice should be heard in Congress. They pay taxes, vote in presidential elections, and serve in the military. Yet these nearly 600,000 Americans do not have a voting representative in Congress. Many, including myself, have been reluctant to support previous proposals based upon the constitutional principle that States, not territories, are afforded congressional representation. I understand the argument that congressional representation is dependent on statehood and, therefore, the Constitution would need to be amended before the District is given a voting representative in Congress. While the Constitution does not affirmatively grant District residents the right to vote in congressional elections, it does affirmatively grant Congress plenary power to govern the District's affairs. Indeed, the Constitution grants Congress exclusive authority to legislate all matters concerning the District, and I believe this authority extends to the granting of congressional voting rights for District residents.

I support this legislation not only because it rectifies the District's undemocratic political status, but it gives my home State of Utah a long overdue fourth voting Member in the House of Representatives.

During the 2000 Census count, Utah missed out on a fourth House seat by only 857 people. The Census Bureau counted members of the military serving abroad as residents of their home State, but did not count an estimated 14,000 Utah missionaries from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints living abroad. Utah took its fight for a fourth seat all the way to the Supreme Court, but lost. Instead, North Carolina gained another seat in the House by 856 residents. Since then, I have heard from many Utahns and share their frustrations about the outcome of the 2000 Census.

Why push for an additional seat now? Under normal circumstances, Utah would have to wait until the 2010 Census to see if its growing population justifies another congressional seat. However, the proposed legislation provides Utah a chance to receive another voting member of Congress 5 years early. That is equivalent to two and a half terms for a Member of Congress and places the new Member well on his or her way in establishing seniority and influence for the benefit of Utah's citizens. I don't think this is an offer we should dismiss.

I have some constitutional concerns with H.R. 1905's attempt to impose an at-large seat upon my State of Utah. In States with more than one seat in the House, Members are expected to represent insular constituencies. Under H.R. 1905, residents of one State would be represented by two House Members while citizens in other States would have one. In addition, in our constitutional system, States are responsible for elections and Utah has chosen the approach it wants to take by redistricting. I see no warrant for Congress to undermine this balance and impose upon Utah a scheme it has not chosen for itself. For this reason, in the proposed Senate legislation, I insisted that Utah be required to redistrict to provide for the new seat. I believe that Utah's legislators deserve the freedom to determine their representatives' districts without unjustified intrusion or mandate of the Federal Government.

Additionally, the House bill would require Utah to hold a special election in 2007 if the bill passes. The Senate version requires that both seats be elected in the November 2008 general election. Thereafter, both new Members would begin their service at the start of the 111th Congress in 2009.

In conclusion, let me say that I recognize there are many who strongly oppose this legislation. There are many who wish the District voting rights issue would simply go away. The Democratic-controlled Congress could have simply pushed forward with legislation giving the District of Columbia a seat without balancing a ``Democrat'' seat with a ``Republican'' seat. I am pleased that this was not the case. The House of Representatives has already voted in favor of moving this legislation forward. Now it is up to the Senate. Let me be clear, the proposed legislation does not provide Senate representation for the District of Columbia. I am not in favor of granting two Senators for the District and would not support such a proposal.

As one who represents Utah, I have an important responsibility to ensure

that my State is dealt with properly and fairly. And, in light of the House's recent legislative action, I am determined to do all that I can to ensure that Utah's fourth seat configuration is done right. I want my fellow Utahns to know that the window of opportunity is quickly closing. In fact, I dare say there won't be another opportunity like this again. For this reason, I intend to make the most of it and hope that my Senate colleagues will support me in this endeavor.

Mr. President, I rise today to join with Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Chairman Joseph Lieberman and Senator Robert Bennett in introducing the District of Columbia Voting House Rights Act of 2007. Our colleagues in the House of Representatives recently passed similar legislation, H.R. 1905, that would provide a fourth congressional seat for my home state of Utah and the first voting member for the District of Columbia. No doubt, this is a historic time for the citizens of the District of Columbia and a unique opportunity for Utah to receive a long overdue fourth congressional seat.

The Founding Fathers made clear in article 1, section 8 of the Constitution that the District of Columbia would be the seat of the national government and granted Congress the power ``[t]o 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 . . .'' This clause became effective in 1790 when Congress accepted land that Maryland and Virginia ceded to the United States to create the national capital. Ten years later, in December 1800, jurisdiction over the District of Columbia was vested in the Federal Government. Since then, District residents have not had the right to vote for Members of Congress. Additionally, article 1, section 2 and section 3 of the Constitution provides that citizens of States shall have voting representation in the House and Senate.

During my time in the Senate, I have heard from many District residents who believe strongly that their voice should be heard in Congress. They pay taxes, vote in presidential elections, and serve in the military. Yet these nearly 600,000 Americans do not have a voting representative in Congress. Many, including myself, have been reluctant to support previous proposals based upon the constitutional principle that States, not territories, are afforded congressional representation. I understand the argument that congressional representation is dependent on statehood and, therefore, the Constitution would need to be amended before the District is given a voting representative in Congress. While the Constitution does not affirmatively grant District residents the right to vote in congressional elections, it does affirmatively grant Congress plenary power to govern the District's affairs. Indeed, the Constitution grants Congress exclusive authority to legislate all matters concerning the District, and I believe this authority extends to the granting of congressional voting rights for District residents.

I support this legislation not only because it rectifies the District's undemocratic political status, but it gives my home State of Utah a long overdue fourth voting Member in the House of Representatives.

During the 2000 Census count, Utah missed out on a fourth House seat by only 857 people. The Census Bureau counted members of the military serving abroad as residents of their home State, but did not count an estimated 14,000 Utah missionaries from the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints living abroad. Utah took its fight for a fourth seat all the way to the Supreme Court, but lost. Instead, North Carolina gained another seat in the House by 856 residents. Since then, I have heard from many Utahns and share their frustrations about the outcome of the 2000 Census.

Why push for an additional seat now? Under normal circumstances, Utah would have to wait until the 2010 Census to see if its growing population justifies another congressional seat. However, the proposed legislation provides Utah a chance to receive another voting member of Congress 5 years early. That is equivalent to two and a half terms for a Member of Congress and places the new Member well on his or her way in establishing seniority and influence for the benefit of Utah's citizens. I don't think this is an offer we should dismiss.

I have some constitutional concerns with H.R. 1905's attempt to impose an at-large seat upon my State of Utah. In States with more than one seat in the House, Members are expected to represent insular constituencies. Under H.R. 1905, residents of one State would be represented by two House Members while citizens in other States would have one. In addition, in our constitutional system, States are responsible for elections and Utah has chosen the approach it wants to take by redistricting. I see no warrant for Congress to undermine this balance and impose upon Utah a scheme it has not chosen for itself. For this reason, in the proposed Senate legislation, I insisted that Utah be required to redistrict to provide for the new seat. I believe that Utah's legislators deserve the freedom to determine their representatives' districts without unjustified intrusion or mandate of the Federal Government.

Additionally, the House bill would require Utah to hold a special election in 2007 if the bill passes. The Senate version requires that both seats be elected in the November 2008 general election. Thereafter, both new Members would begin their service at the start of the 111th Congress in 2009.

In conclusion, let me say that I recognize there are many who strongly oppose this legislation. There are many who wish the District voting rights issue would simply go away. The Democratic-controlled Congress could have simply pushed forward with legislation giving the District of Columbia a seat without balancing a ``Democrat'' seat with a ``Republican'' seat. I am pleased that this was not the case. The House of Representatives has already voted in favor of moving this legislation forward. Now it is up to the Senate. Let me be clear, the proposed legislation does not provide Senate representation for the District of Columbia. I am not in favor of granting two Senators for the District and would not support such a proposal.

As one who represents Utah, I have an important responsibility to ensure

that my State is dealt with properly and fairly. And, in light of the House's recent legislative action, I am determined to do all that I can to ensure that Utah's fourth seat configuration is done right. I want my fellow Utahns to know that the window of opportunity is quickly closing. In fact, I dare say there won't be another opportunity like this again. For this reason, I intend to make the most of it and hope that my Senate colleagues will support me in this endeavor.

Mr. President, S. 1257, the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2007, is an important and consequential bill.

The bill before us would increase the 435-seat House of Representatives to 437 seats, by providing one seat for a voting member in DC, which is predominately Democratic, and one additional seat for Utah, which is predominately Republican. And it does it in a way that doesn't give advantage to one political party over the other.

The time has come to give the District a voice and a vote in the House of Representatives.

I encourage my colleagues to support this legislation.

The legislation is sponsored by Senator Joseph Lieberman, chairman of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee; Senator Orrin Hatch; and my distinguished ranking member on the Rules Committee, Senator Robert Bennett. I am a cosponsor this legislation.

The District of Columbia occupies an interesting and unique place in the United States:

It covers just 61.4 square miles, sandwiched between Virginia and Maryland: Yet with more than 580,000 residents, the population of the District surpasses that of the entire State of Wyoming. The District of Columbia is the seat of American government. The U.S. Congress determines the laws for the District; the Federal Government impacts the District's transportation system, health system, and police function. DC residents pay the second highest per capita Federal income taxes in the country. And District residents have sacrificed their lives defending our Nation. During World War I, World War II, Vietnam, the Korean war, and today in Iraq, they have fought for our democracy. Despite all this, DC residents have no vote in how the Federal Government operates.

``No taxation without representation,'' the colonists told King George in the late 1700s. We cannot allow this lack of representation to continue during the 21st century.

Today, the District of Columbia has a nonvoting representative in Congress--Representative Eleanor Holmes Norton. She has been vocal in representing the interests of the residents of DC, but she is unable to cast a vote on the House floor to ensure that voice is heard. This makes little sense.

We now have an opportunity to change this and to strike the right balance while doing it. The bill before us would add two seats to the House of Representatives, one for the District of Columbia and one for Utah.

Utah was next in line for a fourth congressional district representation in the House, according to 2000 population census data. At that time, Utah was only 856 residents away from becoming eligible for an additional seat.

So this legislation strikes the appropriate balance by allowing additional representation for both DC and Utah without disadvantaging either national political party.

In the last 200 years, Congress has not granted House representation to the District of Columbia by statute. Whether such a Federal law is constitutional has never been before the courts. As a result, critics of the legislation have argued that a bill providing for a vote for the District representative is unconstitutional. However, a bipartisan group of academics, judges, and lawyers argue that Congress has the authority and historical precedents to enact Federal law, and I agree with their view.

The Constitution vests in Congress broad power to regulate national elections and plenary authority over DC under the District clause, article I, section 8, clause 17. This clause permits Congress wide discretion to grant rights to the District of Columbia, including for the purposes of congressional representation.

From 1790 to 1800, Congress allowed District residents to vote in congressional elections in Virginia and Maryland. This was allowed not because they were residents of those States but because Congress acted within its District clause authority.

Constitutional scholars from the right and the left, the most notable conservatives being Judge Kenneth Star and Professor Viet Dinh, believe this legislation is constitutional. These scholars reference the sweeping authority of the District clause, which provides that ``The Congress shall have power . . . to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever'' over the District of Columbia.

In addition to believing that Congress can pass this legislation, I believe there are strong reasons why it should pass this legislation.

DC is affected, perhaps more directly than any other U.S. jurisdiction, by the actions of Congress.

Citizens of the District, rich and poor, work in this town and work in the industries of law, policy, business, tourism, academia and medicine. They pay high taxes; they face the challenges of living in one of the major cities in the United States.

This legislation would provide DC with permanent voting rights for the first time in over 200 years.

From the Boston Tea Party and ``no taxation without representation'' to the suffragettes and struggles over voting rights in the 1960s, the goal of American society has been to bring a voice to citizens who were voiceless.

Voting is the voice of democracy.

This political limbo that Congress has placed on the District has run its course.

It is time to give the District a voice and a vote in the House of Representatives.

This important step can not only right this wrong but can do it without causing partisan rancor or disadvantage to any party. What is at stake

here is nothing less than a fundamental fairness voting issue.

This bill is consistent with the historical precedents of Congress's role in protecting and preserving the right to vote, regardless of color or class, age or gender, disability or original language, party or precinct, and geography domestic or foreign.

It is the right thing to do, and the 21st century is the right times to do it.

I urge my colleagues to join me in taking up and passing this bill on a majority vote in the full Senate.

(At the request of Mr. Reid, the following statement was ordered to be printed in the Record.)

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the sessions of the Senate on Wednesday, May 23, 2007 at 2:30 p.m. in closed session to mark up the national defense authorization act for fiscal year 2008.

Mr. President I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 23, 2007, at 10:00 a.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

The purpose of the hearing is to address the current moratorium that bars state and local taxes on Internet access.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to hold a business meeting during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 23, 2007, at 11:30 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of the business meeting is to consider pending calendar business.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 23, 2007, at 10:00 a.m., in room 215 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building, to hear testimony on ``Funding Social Security's Administrative Costs: Will the Budget Meet the Mission?''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing entitled ``Rising Crime in the United States: Examining the Federal Role in Helping Communities Prevent and Respond to Violent Crime'' on Wednesday, May 23, 2007 at 9:30 a.m. in Dirksen Senate Office Building Room 226.

Witness list

Ted Kamatchus, President, National Sheriffs Association; Russ Lane, Vice President, International Association of Chiefs of Police; Tom Nee, President, National Association of Police Organizations; Douglas Palmer, Mayor of Trenton, NJ, President, United States Conference of Mayors, Trenton, NJ; James Alan Fox, Criminologist, Northeastern University; Rick Gregory, Chief of Police, New Castle, DE.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate Committee on the Judiciary be authorized to meet to conduct a hearing entitled ``Ending Taxation without Representation: The Constitutionality of S. 1257'' on Wednesday, May 23, 2007 at 1:30 p.m. in Dirksen Senate Office Building Room 226.

Witness list

Panel I: The Honorable Chris Cannon, United States Representative, R- UT, Washington, DC; The Honorable Eleanor Holmes Norton, United States Representative, D-DC Delegate, Washington, DC.

Panel II: Representative from the Department of Justice, Washington, DC, Richard P. Bress, Partner, Latham & Watkins, LLP, Washington, DC; Charles J. Ogletree, Jesse Climenko Professor of Law, Harvard Law School, Cambridge, MA; Kenneth R. Thomas, Congressional Research Service, Washington, DC; Jonathan Turley, Professor, George Washington University Law School, Washington, DC; The Honorable Patricia Wald, Former Chief Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Washington, DC.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent for the Committee on Veterans' Affairs to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 23, 2007 to hold a hearing on pending health legislation. The hearing will take place in room 562 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building beginning at 9:30 a.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Joint Economic Committee be authorized to conduct a hearing entitled, ``Is Market Concentration in the U.S. Petroleum Industry, Harming Consumers?'', in Room 215 of the Hart Senate Office Building, Wednesday, May 23, 2007, from 10 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Subcommittee on Security and International Trade and Finance be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 23, 2007, at 2:30 p.m. to conduct a hearing entitled ``U.S. Economic Relations With China: Strategies and Options on Exchange Rates and Market Access.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on May 23, 2007 at 10:30 a.m. to hold a closed markup.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Strategic Forces Subcommittee of the Committee on Armed Services be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, May 23, 2007 at 11:30 a.m., in closed session, to mark up the Strategic Forces Programs and Provisions contained in the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2008.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for the quorum call be rescinded.

Mr. President. I rise to speak in support of S. 1257, the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2007. It is a measure introduced by Senator Lieberman and Senator Hatch and favorably reported by the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

After carefully considering the constitutional issues, I have come to believe, on balance, that S. 1257 is a legitimate mechanism for providing voting representation in the U.S. House of Representatives for the 600,000 Americans who live in the District of Columbia-- citizens who serve in the Armed Forces, pay Federal taxes, participate in Federal programs, and support a local government overseen by Congress--yet who cannot choose a representative with voting rights for the House that meets in their midst.

S. 1257 would also correct an inequity affecting the State of Utah. That State fell just short of qualifying for an additional House seat in the last apportionment--a margin that likely would have disappeared had the census counted the thousands of Mormons who were out of State performing their religious duty as missionaries.

As the Senate considers this legislation, much hinges on our view of the powers assigned, and the rights protected, by our Constitution. Those

powers and rights were discussed at length in the May 15 hearing that our committee conducted on this bill.

We heard vigorous debate from legal experts on whether the enclave clause of the Constitution enables Congress to provide voting representation in the House for the District of Columbia--as a corollary of its exclusive power of legislation in Federal enclaves, including the District. We also heard an impassioned argument that the bill would pass constitutional muster purely on its merits as an equal- representation measure consistent with court rulings in civil rights cases.

I recognize that other lawmakers, and some constitutional scholars, have expressed sincere doubts about this measure. For those who have such concerns, the bill now offers a powerful safeguard. During our June markup, the committee adopted my amendment providing for expedited judicial review of this legislation in the event of a legal challenge. Thus, the new law's legitimacy could be determined promptly by our Federal courts.

My colleagues on the committee also adopted an amendment that I proposed concerning the scope and implications of the bill. The text now carries an explicit statement that the District of Columbia shall not be considered a State for purposes of representation in the Senate. This is an important distinction. Our Constitution links House representation to population, but it links Senate representation to statehood. The residents of the District of Columbia are Americans entitled to House representation, but they are not residents of an entity admitted to the Union as a State. The language added by the committee simply clarifies that the bill does not contemplate or provide support for a legislative grant of Senate representation.

The District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2007 is a carefully crafted measure that provides for speedy review of any legal challenge. The bill's 21 sponsors and cosponsors span the liberal-to- conservative spectrum and includes two independent Senators, as well as Republicans and Democrats--eloquent testimony to the fact that this is not a partisan measure.

I urge my colleagues to support S. 1257, a simple matter of fundamental fairness for American citizens.

Mr. President, I wish to make a final point and say again that there are legitimate arguments about the constitutionality of the measure that is before us, and that is why, when it was before the Homeland Security Committee, I offered an amendment which is incorporated into the bill to allow for expedited judicial review of its constitutionality. I suggest to my colleagues that we should proceed with this measure. If, in fact, it fails on constitutional grounds, that is up to the courts. But today we can stand for an important principle of providing a vote to the residents of the District of Columbia.

I hope my colleagues will allow this bill to go forward, and I urge their support of this measure.

Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.

Mr. President, as ranking member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, I rise today to join with Senator Kerry in introducing, the Small Business Lending Reauthorization and Improvement Act of 2007. This bill is especially timely considering the Nation recently celebrated National Small Business Week, and this body just passed the America COMPETES Act, a bill that invests in innovation and education to improve the competitiveness of the United States in the global economy.

The impact small businesses have on our country's economy and the technological innovations they create simply cannot be overstated. Small hi-tech firms represent the most innovative sector in America. According to the Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy, these businesses hold over 40 percent of the Nation's patents, obtain 13 to 14 times more patents per

employee than large businesses, and secure patents which are twice as technologically significant as larger firms. With American jobs and our security at stake, it is essential that we support innovation programs to meet national challenges in defense, healthcare, energy, and information technology.

A critical partner for small businesses is the Small Business Administration, SBA, whose fundamental purpose is to ``aid, counsel, assist, and protect the interests of small-business concerns.'' The SBA's methods for carrying out this mandate vary widely, but the agency's primary tool is found in its small business lending programs. The SBA's 7(a), 504, and Microloan programs are tailored to encourage small business growth and expansion. With small businesses representing 99 percent of all employers, creating nearly 75 percent of all net new jobs, and employing 51 percent of the private-sector workforce, it is essential that Congress affirms long-term stability in the lending programs the SBA provides to the small business community.

As it has in the past, the SBA continues to meet the demands of small businesses, both in my home state of Maine and across the county. In fiscal Year 2006, the SBA backed a net 100,197 loans totaling over $19.1 billion under the 7(a) and 504 programs. In fact, both the number of loans and the dollar amount represent record amounts for the agency--dramatically highlighting the significance of the SBA and the critical role it plays in our nation's economy.

The foundation for the bill Senator Kerry and I are introducing today started during the 109th Congress under an extensive reauthorization process which I led. This process ultimately culminated in the unanimous Small Business Committee passage of a comprehensive SBA reauthorization bill. I firmly believe that the Small Business Lending Reauthorization and Improvement Act of 2007 will help the SBA continue its legacy of achievement.

The SBA's loan and investment programs have produced success story after success story, which include assisting the founders of Intel, Staples, and Federal Express, as well as thousands of other successful businesses. Our bipartisan measure will build upon these past successes and make the SBA even more effective. As former Chair and now ranking member of the Small Business Committee, I believe we must do everything possible to sustain prosperity and job creation throughout the United States. To achieve that goal, I have long fought to solidify and expand the reach of the SBA's programs that have helped millions of aspiring entrepreneurs and existing small businesses.

Small businesses yearn to grow, flourish, and thrive, and the SBA has the experience and the resources to be their bridge to success. It is essential that we upgrade the SBA's core lending programs for the 21st century entrepreneur. The American economy needs a strong and vibrant Small Business Administration. The Small Business Lending Reauthorization and Improvement Act of 2007 will build on the previous success of the Agency, and help to ensure the success of tomorrow's entrepreneurs.

Mr. President, we have had a lot of people talking about, oh, let's not do this because it is unconstitutional. I want everybody to know there are conservative and liberal advocates on both sides of this issue with regard to the District of Columbia and, I might add, I think most people will know Utah was not treated fairly after the last census. Naturally, Senator Bennett and I are for adding a seat in Utah.

Let's go back to that point. There are good people on both sides of this issue, Democrats and Republicans on each side. There are decent arguments on each side of this issue, although I think our side has been given short shrift by some. And those who are so sure this is unconstitutional, that which the distinguished Senator from Connecticut, Mr. Lieberman, and I have been advocating, then why do they fear the expedited provision in this bill that will get us to the Supreme Court of the United States of America in what would be a very appropriate decision on who is right and who is wrong in this matter?

We all know the argument that we should do this as a constitutional amendment is not a valid argument. It is a good argument, but the fact is it will never pass that way. There are 600,000 people in the District of Columbia, never contemplated by the Founders of this country to be without the right to vote. They are the only people in this country who do not have a right to vote for their own representative in the House of Representatives. This bill would remedy that situation.

Those who argue it would be a presage to getting two Senators don't know the people in America or in this body. The fact is that Senators are elected by States with equal rights of suffrage. This representative, should this bill pass both Houses of Congress, would represent 600,000 people as the people's representative in the House of Representatives, which is what that is supposed to be.

I might add, Supreme Court decision after Supreme Court decision has said the Congress has plenary power in this area, unique power in this area. It says Congress has authority over the District of Columbia. If Congress wants to give the District of Columbia a representative, Congress has the power to do so, and I believe the Supreme Court would uphold it. I do not believe the Supreme Court would uphold an attempt to try and get two Senators for something that is clearly not a State requiring equal rights of suffrage.

I compliment my good friend from Connecticut, Senator Lieberman, for the hard battle he waged and for those in the House who worked so hard on this issue. I hope we can at least debate this matter. All we are doing today is deciding whether we are even going to allow a debate to occur. My gosh, when has the Senate been afraid to debate a constitutional issue as important as this one? This is an important issue. We are prepared to debate. We are prepared to see what happens.

We know if it passes, it is going to have expedited review by the Supreme Court. We are prepared to accept whatever the Supreme Court decides to do, and those who say this is unconstitutional, per se, should not be afraid then. I am willing to go to the Supreme Court, and I will abide by whatever the Supreme Court says. I believe the Supreme Court would uphold this legislation because there are 600,000 people without a right to vote for their own representative.

I used to be opposed to this issue. The more I studied it, the more I agreed with the conservative and liberal constitutional proponents and the more I have become an advocate for it, and I am going to continue to do so. I hope we can at least debate this matter and then, hopefully, get it out of this body and go to the Supreme Court and have them finally decide what should be done.

I yield the floor.