District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2007

Floor Speech

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HOUSE VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 2007

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's observation, but as you know, I schedule legislation for the floor in my capacity as the majority leader.

May I ask my friend, if this came to the floor as a constitutional amendment, would my friend be supportive of that constitutional amendment?

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, this legislation is a critical step in support of democracy. This legislation is important legislation. The District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act is designed to do one thing, to address and rectify the unjustified disenfranchisement of more than 500,000 citizens of our country, whose only distinction between any of us who sit on this floor, other than the distinguished representative of the District of Columbia, ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, is that they live in a few square miles designated by their country, gifted by the State of Maryland, as our Nation's capital.

Since 1801, when Washington, D.C., became this Nation's capital, the citizens of the District of Columbia have not had representation in the Congress. Let me speak briefly of that, because although I have not heard all of the debate, I am sure the Constitution has been referenced that Representatives shall represent citizens of the several States.

Let there be no mistake, every resident of the District of Columbia is a successor to citizens of the several States in 1800. I don't mean that every one of them is a direct descendant, obviously, but politically they were part of the several States, unlike all four others of the representatives who cannot vote. They are distinguished and discrete in that regard. That, I suggest to you, is wrong.

It is wrong as a matter of principle because District citizens pay Federal taxes, sit on juries, serve in our Armed Forces and give their lives for their country, as do other Americans who enjoy full representation in this body. It is wrong politically because District citizens since 1801 have effectively been a ward of Congress. Very frankly, I don't think the citizens of Maryland intended that or the citizens of any other State of the Union when they acquired the District of Columbia.

And it is wrong morally, because the United States of America, which has the freest, truest form of representative government perhaps in human history, deprives only one portion of its citizens, a small portion, 500,000 out of 300 million, deprives a small portion of its citizens of its very own capital a voice in the national legislature.

Let me add, the United States of America is the only representative democracy that does not afford the citizens of its capital voting representation. Thus, this is not only a national disgrace, but an international embarrassment, and the American people and Members here on both sides of the aisle recognize this injustice and want to remedy it. That is what this legislation is about.

In fact, 82 percent of respondents in a recent national poll indicated that residents of the District of Columbia should have representatives that can vote in the Congress. And I should note that legislation virtually identical to this bill was reported out of the Republican-controlled Government Reform Committee in the last Congress when the committee was chaired by Mr. Davis of Virginia, who is a cosponsor of this legislation. Mr. Jack Kemp, a former colleague of ours, a leader in this Congress, a vice presidential nominee of the Republican Party, has strongly urged the passage of this piece of legislation.

The truth is, the absence of representation in Congress for District citizens underscores the failure of the Congress to use the authority vested in it by the Constitution of the United States to correct this injustice. The authority I refer to, of course, is article I, section 8 of the Constitution, the so-called seat of government clause, under which, and I quote, ``The Congress shall have power to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over the District of Columbia.''

Now, I asked my friend, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price) who talked about needing to do this through a constitutional amendment, I said, would you support a constitutional amendment? He said ``no''; his view was, only if the District of Columbia were given back to Maryland and the District of Columbia residents were told, you are no longer residents of the District of Columbia, you are residents of Maryland.

I suggest if you ask the residents of Virginia or Delaware or Pennsylvania, which are contiguous States to our beloved State of Maryland, they would say, thank you, but no thanks. We like being Pennsylvanians or Delawarians or Virginians.

The District of Columbia residents are proud of their jurisdiction. They are proud of being citizens of the District of Columbia. What they want to have is full democratic representation.

Plain and simple, this sweeping language gives Congress extraordinary and plenary power over our Nation's capital city, including the authority to adopt legislation to enfranchise the District's 550,000 residents with a full vote in the House of Representatives.

I am not alone in my view of this article. Twenty-five legal scholars from law schools, and I am sure this has already been discussed by our distinguished chairman and the extraordinarily able Representative and outstanding lawyer and law professor who represents the District of Columbia, my good friend ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, have already pointed this out.

Even Kenneth Starr, a distinguished lawyer, I have disagreed with him pretty strongly on some things, but the former conservative jurist and current dean of Pepperdine Law School, has concluded that Congress has the authority under article I, section 8, to do this.

Now, do I delude myself that this is not going to be brought before a district court or a circuit court or the Supreme Court? No, I do not. That is appropriate. That is available to residents. They can do that, and the court will ultimately have to rule. However, this is an opportunity for us on this floor to make a stand for democracy, to extend to these 550,000 people the civility and respect we would expect for ourselves.

That Congress has for two centuries failed to use its authority to correct an injustice is no reason to persist in that failure today. It is always timely to do the right thing.

This institution exists, after all, to eliminate injustice and to make our Nation ``a more perfect Union.'' How much more perfect can we make the Union than to include all of our people as full citizens within that Union?

We, the Members of this House, must never, never be seduced into thinking there is no such thing as a settled injustice within our authority but beyond our duty to correct. For an injustice planted two centuries ago is just as harmful to what America aspires to be today as one planted last year or last week.

Mr. Chairman, as Frederick Douglass, who spent his final years just a few blocks from where I stand today, said, ``Man's greatness consists in his ability to do and the proper application of his powers to things needed to be done.''

We need to make the citizens of this Nation's capital full citizens of the United States of America.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HOYER. I will certainly seek to enfranchise the citizens on a continuing basis until that is accomplished.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HOYER. I believe this will be tested, as I said before. Many on your side of the aisle have indicated that. If that is the case, I would hope it would be expedited.

I believe this is constitutional, and I certainly think, based upon that conviction, I would hope the court would sustain that view.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, this is a serious matter. It is my understanding, I am now told, I have not seen your motion to recommit; I have no intention of supporting your motion to recommit.

This bill has a long way to go. I hope it passes this House, I hope it passes the Senate, I hope it passes the conference, and I hope the President signs it.

My response to you was a fair response. But the question was to get me on the record on your motion, apparently, and I will tell my friend from Virginia, who disagrees with my other friend from Virginia, Mr. Davis, on this issue, that I have every intention of opposing the motion to recommit.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source