S140 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 6, 2009 

(2) by striking ‘‘2009’’ in clause (ii)(I) and 

inserting ‘‘2010’’, and 

(3) by striking ‘‘to calendar year 2009’’ in 

clause (ii)(II) and inserting ‘‘to calendar 

years 2008, 2009, or 2010’’. 

(b) ELIGIBLE ROLLOVER DISTRIBUTIONS.— 

The last sentence of section 402(c)(4) of the 

Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as added by 

the Worker, Retiree, and Employer Recovery 

Act of 2008, is amended by striking ‘‘2009’’ 

and inserting ‘‘2008, 2009, or 2010’’. 

(c) EFFECTIVE DATES.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The amendments made by 

this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2007. 

(2) RECONTRIBUTIONS OF DISTRIBUTIONS IN

2008 OR EARLY 2009.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—If a person receives 1 or 

more eligible distributions, the person may, 

on or before July 1, 2009, make one or more 

contributions (in an aggregate amount not 

exceeding all eligible distributions) to an eligible retirement plan and to which a rollover 

contribution of such distribution could be 

made under section 402(c), 403(a)(4), 403(b)(8), 

408(d)(3), or 457(e)(16) of the Internal Revenue 

Code of 1986, as the case may be. For purposes of the preceding sentence, rules similar 

to the rules of clauses (ii) and (iii) of section 

402(c)(11)(A) of such Code shall apply in the 

case of a beneficiary who is not the surviving 

spouse of the employee or of the owner of the 

individual retirement plan. 

(B) ELIGIBLE DISTRIBUTION.—For purposes 

of this paragraph— 

(i) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in 

clause (ii), the term ‘‘eligible distribution’’ 

means an applicable distribution to a person 

from an individual account or annuity— 

(I) under a plan which is described in 

clause (iv), and 

(II) from which a distribution would, but 

for the application of section 401(a)(9)(H) of 

such Code, have been required to have been 

made to the individual for 2008 or 2009, 

whichever is applicable, in order to satisfy 

the requirements of sections 401(a)(9), 

404(a)(2), 403(b)(10), 408(a)(6), 408(b)(3), and 

457(d)(2) of such Code. 

(ii) ELIGIBLE DISTRIBUTIONS LIMITED TO REQUIRED DISTRIBUTIONS.—The aggregate 

amount of applicable distributions which 

may be treated as eligible distributions for 

purposes of this paragraph shall not exceed— 

(I) for purposes of applying subparagraph 

(A) to distributions made in 2008, the amount 

which would, but for the application of section 401(a)(9)(H) of such Code, have been required to have been made to the individual 

in order to satisfy the requirements of sections 401(a)(9), 404(a)(2), 403(b)(10), 408(a)(6), 

408(b)(3), and 457(d)(2) of such Code for 2008, 

and 

(II) for purposes of applying subparagraph 

(A) to distributions made in 2009, the sum of 

the amount which would, but for the application of such section 401(a)(9)(H), have been 

required to have been made to the individual 

in order to satisfy such requirements for 

2009, plus the excess (if any) of the amount 

described in subclause (I) which may be distributed in 2009 to meet such requirements 

for 2008 over the portion of such amount 

taken into account under subclause (I) for 

distributions made in 2008. 

(iii) APPLICABLE DISTRIBUTION.— 

(I) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘‘applicable distribution’’ means a payment or distribution 

which is made during the period beginning 

on January 1, 2008, and ending on June 30, 

2009. 

(II) EXCEPTION FOR MINIMUM REQUIRED DISTRIBUTIONS FOR OTHER YEARS.—Such term 

shall not include a payment or distribution 

which is required to be made in order to satisfy the requirements of section 401(a)(9), 

404(a)(2), 403(b)(10), 408(a)(6), 408(b)(3), or 

457(d)(2) of such Code for a calendar year 

other than 2008 or 2009. 

(III) EXCEPTION FOR PAYMENTS IN A SERIES.—In the case of any plan described in 

clause (iv)(I), such term shall not include 

any payment or distribution made in 2009 

which is a payment or distribution described 

in section 402(c)(4)(A). 

(iv) PLANS DESCRIBED.—A plan is described 

in this clause if the plan is— 

(I) a defined contribution plan (within the 

meaning of section 414(i) of such Code) which 

is described in section 401, 403(a), or 403(b) of 

such Code or which is an eligible deferred 

compensation plan described in section 457(b) 

of such Code maintained by an eligible employer described in section 457(e)(1)(A)) of 

such Code, or 

(II) an individual retirement plan (as defined in section 7701(a)(37) of such Code). 

(C) TREATMENT OF REPAYMENTS OF DISTRIBUTIONS FROM ELIGIBLE RETIREMENT PLANS

OTHER THAN IRAS.—For purposes of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, if a contribution is 

made pursuant to subparagraph (A) with respect to a payment or distribution from a 

plan other than an individual retirement 

plan, then the taxpayer shall, to the extent 

of the amount of the contribution, be treated 

as having received the payment or distribution in an eligible rollover distribution (as 

defined in section 402(c)(4) of such Code) and 

as having transferred the amount to the plan 

in a direct trustee to trustee transfer. 

(D) TREATMENT OF REPAYMENTS FOR DISTRIBUTIONS FROM IRAS.—For purposes of the 

Internal Revenue Code of 1986, if a contribution is made pursuant to subparagraph (A) 

with respect to a payment or distribution 

from an individual retirement plan (as defined by section 7701(a)(37) of such Code), 

then, to the extent of the amount of the contribution, such payments or distributions 

shall be treated as a distribution that satisfies subparagraphs (A) and (B) of section 

408(d)(3) of such Code and as having been 

transferred to the individual retirement plan 

in a direct trustee to trustee transfer. 

(3) PROVISIONS RELATING TO PLAN OR CONTRACT AMENDMENTS.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—If this paragraph applies 

to any pension plan or contract amendment, 

such pension plan or contract shall be treated as being operated in accordance with the 

terms of the plan during the period described 

in subparagraph (B)(ii)(I). 

(B) AMENDMENTS TO WHICH PARAGRAPH APPLIES.— 

(i) IN GENERAL.—This paragraph shall apply 

to any amendment to any pension plan or 

annuity contract which— 

(I) is made by pursuant to the amendments 

made by this section, and 

(II) is made on or before the last day of the 

first plan year beginning on or after January 

1, 2011. 

In the case of a governmental plan, subclause (II) shall be applied by substituting 

‘‘2012’’ for ‘‘2011’’. 

(ii) CONDITIONS.—This paragraph shall not 

apply to any amendment unless during the 

period beginning on January 1, 2009, and ending on December 31, 2010 (or, if earlier, the 

date the plan or contract amendment is 

adopted), the plan or contract is operated as 

if such plan or contract amendment were in 

effect. 

By Ms. SNOWE (for herself, Mr. 

KERRY, Mr. BROWN, and Mrs. 

LINCOLN: 

S. 158. A bill to amend the Internal 

Revenue Code of 1986 to expand the 

availability of industrial development 

bonds to facilities manufacturing intangible property; to the Committee on 

Finance. 

Ms. SNOWE. Mr. President, I rise 

today to reintroduce legislation that 

would provide State and local development finance authorities with greater 

flexibility in promoting economic 

growth that meets the changing realities of an ever more global economy. 

Specifically, my bill would expand the 

definition of ‘‘manufacturing’’ as it 

pertains to the small-issue Industrial 

Development Bond, IDB, program to 

include the creation of ‘‘intangible’’ 

property. I am pleased to be joined by 

Senators KERRY, BROWN, and LINCOLN

in reintroducing this critical legislation to promote economic development, and I strongly believe it would 

be a critical additional to any stimulus 

legislation. 

Our Nation’s capacity to innovate is 

a key reason why our economy remains 

the envy of the world, even during 

these difficult economic times. Knowledge-based businesses have been at the 

forefront of this innovation that has 

bolstered the economy over the longterm. For example, science parks have 

helped lead the technological revolution and have created more than 300,000 

high-paying science and technology 

jobs, along with another 450,000 indirect jobs for a total of 750,000 jobs in 

North America. 

It is clear that the promotion of 

knowledge-based industries can be a 

key economic tool for States and localities. This is especially true for States 

that have seen a loss in traditional 

manufacturing. In my home State of 

Maine, we lost 28 percent of our total 

manufacturing employment over the 

last decade. I believe that it is critical 

that we provide States and localities 

with a wider range of options in promoting economic development, particularly as our economy lost over 2 

million jobs in 2008. My legislation will 

do just that by expanding the availability of small-issue IDBs to new 

economy industries, such as software 

and biotechnology, that have proven 

their ability to provide high-paying 

jobs. 

These IDBs allow State and local development finance authorities, like the 

Finance Authority of Maine, to issue 

tax-exempt bonds for the purpose of 

raising capital to provide low-cost financing of manufacturing facilities. 

These bonds, therefore, provide local 

authorities with an invaluable tool to 

attract new employers and assist existing ones to grow. The result is a winwin situation for local communities 

providing them with much needed jobs. 

Consequently, it only makes sense to 

ensure that these finance authorities 

have maximum flexibility in options to 

grow jobs. 

In addition, my bill provides some 

technical clarity to distinguish between the phrases ‘‘functionally related and subordinate facilities’’ and 

‘‘directly related and ancillary facilities.’’ Until 1988, there was little confusion based on Treasury regulations 

going back to 1972 that made it clear 

that ‘‘functionally related and subordinate facilities’’ were clearly eligible for 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with SENATE
January 6, 2009 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S141 

financing through private activity taxexempt bonds. But, Congress enacted 

the Technical and Miscellaneous Revenue Bond Act of 1988 that imposed a 

limitation that not more than 25 percent of tax-exempt bond financing 

could be used on ‘‘directly related and 

ancillary facilities.’’ While these two 

phrases appear to be very similar, they 

are indeed distinguishable from each 

other. Unfortunately, the Internal Revenue Service has blurred this distinction between the phrases which has had 

an adverse impact on the way facilities 

are able to utilize tax-exempt bond financing. My legislation would make it 

clear that ‘‘functionally related and 

subordinate facilities’’ are not susceptible to the 25 percent limitation. 

We must continue to encourage all 

avenues of economic development if 

America is to compete in a changing 

and increasingly global economy, and 

my legislation is one small step in furtherance of that goal. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this 

bill and to include it in stimulus legislation we will be considering in the 

coming weeks. 

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

in the RECORD. 

There being no objection, the text of 

the bill was ordered to be printed in 

the RECORD, as follows: 

S. 158 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in 

Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. EXPANSION OF AVAILABILITY OF INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BONDS TO 

FACILITIES MANUFACTURING INTANGIBLE PROPERTY. 

(a) EXPANSION TO INTANGIBLE PROPERTY.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—The first sentence of section 144(a)(12)(C) of the Internal Revenue 

Code of 1986 (defining manufacturing facility) is amended— 

(A) by inserting ‘‘, creation,’’ after ‘‘used 

in the manufacturing’’, and 

(B) by inserting ‘‘or intangible property 

which is described in section 197(d)(1)(C)(iii)’’ 

before the period at the end. 

(2) CLARIFICATION.—The last sentence of 

section 144(a)(12)(C) of such Code is amended 

to read as follows: ‘‘For purposes of the first 

sentence of this subparagraph, the term 

‘manufacturing facility’ includes— 

‘‘(i) facilities which are functionally related and subordinate to a manufacturing facility (determined without regard to this 

clause), and 

‘‘(ii) facilities which are directly related 

and ancillary to a manufacturing facility 

(determined without regard to this clause) 

if— 

‘‘(I) such facilities are located on the same 

site as the manufacturing facility, and 

‘‘(II) not more than 25 percent of the net 

proceeds of the issue are used to provide such 

facilities.’’. 

(b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments 

made by this section shall apply to bonds 

issued after the date of the enactment of this 

Act. 

By Mr. LIEBERMAN (for himself, 

Mr. HATCH, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. 

KENNEDY, MRS. CLINTON, Mr. 

DODD, Mr. SANDERS, Mr. KERRY, 

Mr. DURBIN, and Mr. FEINGOLD): 

S. 160. A bill to provide the District 

of Columbia a voting seat and the 

State of Utah an additional seat in the 

House of Representatives; to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. 

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I 

am honored to have the opportunity 

today, obviously early on this first day 

of this new session of Congress, together with my colleague from Utah, 

Senator HATCH, to introduce bipartisan 

legislation which will finally grant 

citizens of our Nation’s Capital, the 

District of Columbia, voting representation, the proper representation to 

which they are entitled as citizens. 

That representative voting would be 

in the House of Representatives. This 

bill is entitled ‘‘The District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2009.’’ 

It is identical to a bill which Senator 

HATCH and I introduced in the 110th 

Congress. 

It would, for the first time, give citizens of the District of Columbia full 

voting representation in the House 

while adding a fourth congressional 

seat for the State of Utah based on 

population statistics from the 2000 census in which they came very close. I 

think the people of Utah would in fact 

say they deserve an additional seat. 

This is the fifth session in which I 

have introduced legislation to try to 

correct what I believe is a fundamental 

wrong—which is to deny the citizens of 

our Nation’s Capital voting representation in Congress. I hope and believe and 

pray this is the session in which we are 

going to get this done. 

Last year, this bill passed overwhelmingly in the House by a vote of 

271 to 177, but it fell three votes short 

of gaining cloture in the Senate, 

though the vote in favor was 57 to 42. 

With a new Congress and a new President who was in fact a cosponsor of 

this bill himself in the last session of 

Congress, I am hopeful we can pass this 

legislation, vital to the rights of nearly 

600,000 Americans living in the District 

of Columbia. Keep in mind the population of the District, though small 

compared to many States, is roughly 

equal to the State populations of Alaska, North Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming, all of which have, of course, not 

only representation—that is, voting in 

the House—but two Senators here. This 

deals only and exclusively with voting 

representation in the House. 

I want to particularly thank my dear 

friend and colleague, Senator ORIN

HATCH, for his continued, principled, 

steadfast support of this bill. He set 

aside partisanship to join me and others in trying to right this historic 

wrong. I greatly admire his commitment to this cause. 

I am also proud to say Senators 

LEAHY, KENNEDY, CLINTON, DODD, 

SANDERS, KERRY, DURBIN, and FEINGOLD are today joining as original cosponsors of this legislation. 

Of course, I pay special honor and 

thanks to the DC Delegate, ELEANOR

HOLMES NORTON, who has been a tireless champion of full representation for 

the citizens of the District; of course, a 

tireless champion for the citizens of 

the District generally. Delegate NORTON is introducing a similar bill in the 

House today. 

I do this with a certain special personal pride because Delegate NORTON

and I were at law school at Yale at the 

same time just a few years ago. It probably would seem, to the casual observer, hard to believe that we deny 

the residents of our Nation’s Capital of 

the right to have a voting representative in the House of Representatives. In 

fact, public opinion polls have been 

taken over the years that ask people: 

Do you think the residents of the District of Columbia have voting representation in the House? Overwhelming, 

the American public says: Of course 

they do, because they cannot believe 

there would be a reason to deny them 

the representation. 

In recent years, those who have opposed this legislation which would correct a historic injustice have argued 

that congressional representation is 

granted only to the States under the 

Constitution, and therefore our legislation is unconstitutional. 

With all respect, I believe that simply is not true. The Constitution provides Congress with the authority to 

bestow voting rights on the District. 

Multiple constitutional experts, spanning the full ideological spectrum of 

left to right, including Ken Starr, 

former judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals and former Solicitor General, and 

Viet Dinh, former Assistant Attorney 

General, and many others have told 

Congress and the public that this authority, which is, the authority to 

grant representation in Congress, lies 

within the District Clause of the Constitution, which is article I, section 8, 

where it states: 

Congress has the power to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over 

such District. 

Congress has repeatedly used this authority to treat the District of Columbia as a State for various public purposes. For example, as long ago as 1940, 

the Judiciary Act of 1789 was revised to 

broaden diversity jurisdiction to include citizens of the District, even 

though the Constitution specifically 

provides that national courts may hear 

cases ‘‘between citizens of different 

States.’’ 

In other words, in that act, Congress 

said no, for purposes of diversity of jurisdiction access to the courts, even 

though the Constitution says that 

courts may hear cases between citizens 

of different States. It would be incomprehensible that citizens of the District 

of Columbia, because they happen to 

live in the Nation’s Capital, could not 

gain access to the Federal courts. 

When challenged, this revision to the 

Judiciary Act was upheld as constitutional by the Federal courts themselves. Furthermore, the courts have 

found that Congress has the authority 

to impose national taxes on the District, to provide a jury trial to residents of the District, and to include 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with SENATE
S142 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 6, 2009 

the District in interstate commerce 

regulations. 

These are rights and responsibilities 

that our Constitution grants to States. 

Yet the District Clause has allowed 

Congress to apply those rights and responsibilities to the District of Columbia because not to do so would make 

residents of the District, or the District itself, second class in their citizenship. 

Treating the District as a State for 

purposes of voting representation in 

Congress should be no different. The 

elections of 2008 saw a historic number 

of citizens carrying out their civic duty 

by voting for their representatives in 

Congress. Unfortunately, for over 200 

years, DC residents have been denied 

that most basic right. 

According to a 2005 KRC Research 

poll, 82 percent of Americans, when 

told that residents of the District do 

not have a voting representative in 

Congress, say it is time to give that 

voting representation to the citizens of 

our Nation’s Capital. 

This has very practical and just consequences. People of the District have 

been the target directly of terrorist attacks, but they have no vote on how 

the Federal Government provides for 

their homeland security. Men and 

women citizens of the District have 

fought bravely in our wars, in defense 

of our security and our freedom over 

the years, many giving their lives in 

defense of our country. Yet citizens of 

the District have no voting representation in Congress on the serious questions of war and peace, veterans’ benefits, and the like. Of course, the citizens of the District of Columbia, per 

capita, pay Federal income taxes at the 

second highest rate in the Nation. Yet 

they have absolutely no voice, no voting representation, in setting tax rates 

or in determining how the revenues 

raised by those taxes will be spent. 

This is plain wrong. The Supreme 

Court has said ‘‘that no right is more 

precious in a free country than that of 

having a vote in the election of those 

who make the laws, under which, as 

good citizens, we must live.’’ 

We can no longer deny our fellow 

American citizens who happen to live 

in the District of Columbia this precious right. With the United States engaged now in two wars, a global war 

also against terrorists who attacked us 

on 9/11/2001, with our country facing the 

most significant economic crisis since 

the Great Depression, it is past time to 

grant the vote to those citizens living 

in our Nation’s Capital so their vote 

can be rightfully heard as we debate 

these great and complex issues of our 

time. 

This matter has fallen, according to 

our rules, under the jurisdiction of the 

Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, which I 

am privileged to chair. I hope we will 

be able to take it up quickly. It is my 

intention to consider this legislation at 

the first markup of our committee in 

the session, and then to bring it to the 

floor as quickly as possible with a high 

sense of optimism that on this occasion, if there is another filibuster that 

we will have, with the help of the new 

Members of the Senate, more than 60 

votes necessary to close it off, and at 

least have a vote on this question of 

fundamental rights for 600,000 of our 

fellow Americans. 

I want to submit not only an original 

copy of the bill to the clerk, but also 

for the RECORD a statement from Senator HATCH, which I ask unanimous 

consent to appear as if read. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without 

objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. LIEBERMAN. Mr. President, I 

ask unanimous consent that the bill be 

printed in the RECORD. 

There being no objection, the text of 

the bill was ordered to be printed in 

the RECORD, as follows: 

S. 160 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in 

Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the ‘‘District of 

Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2009’’. 

SEC. 2. TREATMENT OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

AS CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT. 

(a) CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT AND NO SENATE REPRESENTATION.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any 

other provision of law, the District of Columbia shall be considered a Congressional district for purposes of representation in the 

House of Representatives. 

(2) NO REPRESENTATION PROVIDED IN SENATE.—The District of Columbia shall not be 

considered a State for purposes of representation in the United States Senate. 

(b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS RELATING TO

APPORTIONMENT OF MEMBERS OF HOUSE OF

REPRESENTATIVES.— 

(1) INCLUSION OF SINGLE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA MEMBER IN REAPPORTIONMENT OF MEMBERS

AMONG STATES.—Section 22 of the Act entitled ‘‘An Act to provide for the fifteenth and 

subsequent decennial censuses and to provide 

for apportionment of Representatives in Congress’’, approved June 28, 1929 (2 U.S.C. 2a), is 

amended by adding at the end the following 

new subsection: 

‘‘(d) This section shall apply with respect 

to the District of Columbia in the same manner as this section applies to a State, except 

that the District of Columbia may not receive more than one Member under any reapportionment of Members.’’. 

(2) CLARIFICATION OF DETERMINATION OF

NUMBER OF PRESIDENTIAL ELECTORS ON BASIS

OF 23RD AMENDMENT.—Section 3 of title 3, 

United States Code, is amended by striking 

‘‘come into office;’’ and inserting the following: ‘‘come into office (subject to the 

twenty-third article of amendment to the 

Constitution of the United States in the case 

of the District of Columbia);’’. 

SEC. 3. INCREASE IN MEMBERSHIP OF HOUSE OF 

REPRESENTATIVES. 

(a) PERMANENT INCREASE IN NUMBER OF

MEMBERS.—Effective with respect to the 

112th Congress and each succeeding Congress, the House of Representatives shall be 

composed of 437 Members, including the 

Member representing the District of Columbia pursuant to section 2(a). 

(b) REAPPORTIONMENT OF MEMBERS RESULTING FROM INCREASE.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Section 22(a) of the Act 

entitled ‘‘An Act to provide for the fifteenth 

and subsequent decennial censuses and to 

provide for apportionment of Representatives in Congress’’, approved June 28, 1929 (2 

U.S.C. 2a(a)), is amended by striking ‘‘the 

then existing number of Representatives’’ 

and inserting ‘‘the number of Representatives established with respect to the 112th 

Congress’’. 

(2) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment 

made by paragraph (1) shall apply with respect to the regular decennial census conducted for 2010 and each subsequent regular 

decennial census. 

(c) TRANSMITTAL OF REVISED APPORTIONMENT INFORMATION BY PRESIDENT.— 

(1) STATEMENT OF APPORTIONMENT BY PRESIDENT.—Not later than 30 days after the date 

of the enactment of this Act, the President 

shall transmit to Congress a revised version 

of the most recent statement of apportionment submitted under section 22(a) of the 

Act entitled ‘‘An Act to provide for the fifteenth and subsequent decennial censuses 

and to provide for apportionment of Representatives in Congress’’, approved June 28, 

1929 (2 U.S.C. 2a(a)), to take into account 

this Act and the amendments made by this 

Act and identifying the State of Utah as the 

State entitled to one additional Representative pursuant to this section. 

(2) REPORT BY CLERK.—Not later than 15 

calendar days after receiving the revised 

version of the statement of apportionment 

under paragraph (1), the Clerk of the House 

of Representatives shall submit a report to 

the Speaker of the House of Representatives 

identifying the State of Utah as the State 

entitled to one additional Representative 

pursuant to this section. 

SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE; TIMING OF ELECTIONS. 

The general election for the additional 

Representative to which the State of Utah is 

entitled for the 112th Congress and the general election for the Representative from the 

District of Columbia for the 112th Congress 

shall be subject to the following requirements: 

(1) The additional Representative from the 

State of Utah will be elected pursuant to a 

redistricting plan enacted by the State, such 

as the plan the State of Utah signed into law 

on December 5, 2006, which— 

(A) revises the boundaries of Congressional 

districts in the State to take into account 

the additional Representative to which the 

State is entitled under section 3; and 

(B) remains in effect until the taking effect of the first reapportionment occurring 

after the regular decennial census conducted 

for 2010. 

(2) The additional Representative from the 

State of Utah and the Representative from 

the District of Columbia shall be sworn in 

and seated as Members of the House of Representatives on the same date as other Members of the 112th Congress. 

SEC. 5. CONFORMING AMENDMENTS. 

(a) REPEAL OF OFFICE OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DELEGATE.— 

(1) REPEAL OF OFFICE.— 

(A) IN GENERAL.—Sections 202 and 204 of 

the District of Columbia Delegate Act (Public Law 91–405; sections 1–401 and 1–402, D.C. 

Official Code) are repealed, and the provisions of law amended or repealed by such 

sections are restored or revived as if such 

sections had not been enacted. 

(B) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments 

made by this subsection shall take effect on 

the date on which a Representative from the 

District of Columbia takes office. 

(2) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS TO DISTRICT

OF COLUMBIA ELECTIONS CODE OF 1955.—The 

District of Columbia Elections Code of 1955 is 

amended as follows: 

(A) In section 1 (sec. 1–1001.01, D.C. Official 

Code), by striking ‘‘the Delegate to the 

House of Representatives,’’ and inserting 

‘‘the Representative in Congress,’’. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with SENATE
January 6, 2009 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE S143 

(B) In section 2 (sec. 1–1001.02, D.C. Official 

Code)— 

(i) by striking paragraph (6); and 

(ii) in paragraph (13), by striking ‘‘the Delegate to Congress for the District of Columbia,’’ and inserting ‘‘the Representative in 

Congress,’’. 

(C) In section 8 (sec. 1–1001.08, D.C. Official 

Code)— 

(i) in the heading, by striking ‘‘Delegate’’ 

and inserting ‘‘Representative’’; and 

(ii) by striking ‘‘Delegate,’’ each place it 

appears in subsections (h)(1)(A), (i)(1), and 

(j)(1) and inserting ‘‘Representative in Congress,’’. 

(D) In section 10 (sec. 1–1001.10, D.C. Official Code)— 

(i) in subsection (a)(3)(A)— 

(I) by striking ‘‘or section 206(a) of the District of Columbia Delegate Act’’; and 

(II) by striking ‘‘the office of Delegate to 

the House of Representatives’’ and inserting 

‘‘the office of Representative in Congress’’; 

(ii) in subsection (d)(1), by striking ‘‘Delegate,’’ each place it appears; and 

(iii) in subsection (d)(2)— 

(I) by striking ‘‘(A) In the event’’ and all 

that follows through ‘‘term of office,’’ and 

inserting ‘‘In the event that a vacancy occurs in the office of Representative in Congress before May 1 of the last year of the 

Representative’s term of office,’’; and 

(II) by striking subparagraph (B). 

(E) In section 11(a)(2) (sec. 1–1001.11(a)(2), 

D.C. Official Code), by striking ‘‘Delegate to 

the House of Representatives,’’ and inserting 

‘‘Representative in Congress,’’. 

(F) In section 15(b) (sec. 1–1001.15(b), D.C. 

Official Code), by striking ‘‘Delegate,’’ and 

inserting ‘‘Representative in Congress,’’. 

(G) In section 17(a) (sec. 1–1001.17(a), D.C. 

Official Code), by striking ‘‘the Delegate to 

Congress from the District of Columbia’’ and 

inserting ‘‘the Representative in Congress’’. 

(b) REPEAL OF OFFICE OF STATEHOOD REPRESENTATIVE.— 

(1) IN GENERAL.—Section 4 of the District 

of Columbia Statehood Constitutional Convention Initiative of 1979 (sec. 1–123, D.C. Official Code) is amended as follows: 

(A) By striking ‘‘offices of Senator and 

Representative’’ each place it appears in subsection (d) and inserting ‘‘office of Senator’’. 

(B) In subsection (d)(2)— 

(i) by striking ‘‘a Representative or’’; 

(ii) by striking ‘‘the Representative or’’; 

and 

(iii) by striking ‘‘Representative shall be 

elected for a 2-year term and each’’. 

(C) In subsection (d)(3)(A), by striking ‘‘and 

1 United States Representative’’. 

(D) By striking ‘‘Representative or’’ each 

place it appears in subsections (e), (f), (g), 

and (h). 

(E) By striking ‘‘Representative’s or’’ each 

place it appears in subsections (g) and (h). 

(2) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.— 

(A) STATEHOOD COMMISSION.—Section 6 of 

such Initiative (sec. 1–125, D.C. Official Code) 

is amended— 

(i) in subsection (a)— 

(I) by striking ‘‘27 voting members’’ and inserting ‘‘26 voting members’’; 

(II) by adding ‘‘and’’ at the end of paragraph (5); and 

(III) by striking paragraph (6) and redesignating paragraph (7) as paragraph (6); and 

(ii) in subsection (a–1)(1), by striking subparagraph (H). 

(B) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.— 

Section 8 of such Initiative (sec. 1–127, D.C. 

Official Code) is amended by striking ‘‘and 

House’’. 

(C) APPLICATION OF HONORARIA LIMITATIONS.—Section 4 of D.C. Law 8–135 (sec. 1– 

131, D.C. Official Code) is amended by striking ‘‘or Representative’’ each place it appears. 

(D) APPLICATION OF CAMPAIGN FINANCE

LAWS.—Section 3 of the Statehood Convention Procedural Amendments Act of 1982 

(sec. 1–135, D.C. Official Code) is amended by 

striking ‘‘and United States Representative’’. 

(E) DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ELECTIONS CODE

OF 1955.—The District of Columbia Elections 

Code of 1955 is amended— 

(i) in section 2(13) (sec. 1–1001.02(13), D.C. 

Official Code), by striking ‘‘United States 

Senator and Representative,’’ and inserting 

‘‘United States Senator,’’; and 

(ii) in section 10(d) (sec. 1–1001.10(d)(3), D.C. 

Official Code), by striking ‘‘United States 

Representative or’’. 

(3) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments 

made by this subsection shall take effect on 

the date on which a Representative from the 

District of Columbia takes office. 

(c) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS REGARDING

APPOINTMENTS TO SERVICE ACADEMIES.— 

(1) UNITED STATES MILITARY ACADEMY.— 

Section 4342 of title 10, United States Code, 

is amended— 

(A) in subsection (a), by striking paragraph 

(5); and 

(B) in subsection (f), by striking ‘‘the District of Columbia,’’. 

(2) UNITED STATES NAVAL ACADEMY.—Such 

title is amended— 

(A) in section 6954(a), by striking paragraph (5); and 

(B) in section 6958(b), by striking ‘‘the District of Columbia,’’. 

(3) UNITED STATES AIR FORCE ACADEMY.— 

Section 9342 of title 10, United States Code, 

is amended— 

(A) in subsection (a), by striking paragraph 

(5); and 

(B) in subsection (f), by striking ‘‘the District of Columbia,’’. 

(4) EFFECTIVE DATE.—This subsection and 

the amendments made by this subsection 

shall take effect on the date on which a Representative from the District of Columbia 

takes office. 

SEC. 6. NONSEVERABILITY OF PROVISIONS AND 

NONAPPLICABILITY. 

(a) NONSEVERABILITY.—If any provision of 

this Act or any amendment made by this Act 

is declared or held invalid or unenforceable, 

the remaining provisions of this Act or any 

amendment made by this Act shall be treated and deemed invalid and shall have no 

force or effect of law. 

(b) NONAPPLICABILITY.—Nothing in the Act 

shall be construed to affect the first reapportionment occurring after the regular decennial census conducted for 2010 if this Act has 

not taken effect. 

SEC. 7. JUDICIAL REVIEW. 

If any action is brought to challenge the 

constitutionality of any provision of this Act 

or any amendment made by this Act, the following rules shall apply: 

(1) The action shall be filed in the United 

States District Court for the District of Columbia and shall be heard by a 3-judge court 

convened pursuant to section 2284 of title 28, 

United States Code. 

(2) A copy of the complaint shall be delivered promptly to the Clerk of the House of 

Representatives and the Secretary of the 

Senate. 

(3) A final decision in the action shall be 

reviewable only by appeal directly to the Supreme Court of the United States. Such appeal shall be taken by the filing of a notice 

of appeal within 10 days, and the filing of a 

jurisdictional statement within 30 days, of 

the entry of the final decision. 

(4) 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. 

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, as I did 

in the last Congress, I am cosponsoring 

the legislation introduced today by the 

Senator from Connecticut to provide a 

House seat for the District of Columbia 

and an additional House seat for Utah. 

Representation and suffrage are so 

central to the American system of selfgovernment that America’s founders 

warned that limiting suffrage would 

risk another revolution and could prevent ratification of the Constitution. 

The Supreme Court has said that no 

right is more precious in a free country 

than having a voice in the election of 

those who govern us. I continue to believe what I stated more than 30 years 

ago here on the Senate floor, that 

Americans living in the District should 

enjoy all the privileges of citizenship, 

including voting rights. 

The bill introduced today would treat 

the District of Columbia as a congressional district to provide for full representation in the House. The bill 

states, however, that the District shall 

not be treated as a State for representation in this body. 

No matter how worthwhile or even 

compelling an objective might be, however, we cannot legislatively pursue it 

without authority grounded in the 

Constitution. I would note that the 

Constitution explicitly gives Congress 

legislative authority over the District 

‘‘in all cases whatsoever.’’ This authority is unparalleled in scope and has 

been called sweeping, plenary, and extraordinary by the courts. It surpasses 

both the authority a State legislature 

has over its own State and the authority Congress has over legislation affecting the States. 

Some have argued that despite the 

centrality of representation and suffrage, and notwithstanding our unparalleled and plenary authority over the 

District, that Congress cannot provide 

a House seat for the District by legislation. They base their argument on a 

single word. Article I, Section 5, of the 

Constitution provides that the House 

of Representatives shall be composed 

of members chosen by the people of the 

several States. Because the District is 

not a State, the argument goes, it cannot have a House seat without a constitutional amendment, 

I studied this issue extensively and 

published my analysis and conclusions 

in the Harvard Journal on Legislation 

for everyone to consider. I ask unanimous consent that this article be made 

part of the RECORD following my remarks. Let me here just mention a few 

considerations that I found persuasive. 

First, as I have already mentioned, 

the default position of our system of 

government is representation and suffrage. That principle is so fundamental 

that, in this case, I believe there must 

be actual evidence that America’s 

founders intended to deny it to District 

residents, No such evidence exists. 

Second, establishing and maintaining 

the District as a separate political jurisdiction does not require 

disenfranchising its residents. The 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with SENATE
S144 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD — SENATE January 6, 2009 

founders wanted the capital to be free 

from State control and I support keeping it that way. Giving the District a 

House seat changes neither that status 

nor Congress’ legislative authority 

over the District. 

Third, America’s founders not only 

did not intend to disenfranchise District residents, they demonstrated the 

opposite intention by their own legislative actions. In 1790, Congress provided 

by legislation for Americans living in 

the land ceded for the District to vote 

in congressional elections. No one even 

suggested that this legislation was unconstitutional because that land was 

not part of a State. If Congress could 

do it then, Congress can do it today. 

Fourth, courts have held for more 

than two centuries that constitutional 

provisions framed in terms of States 

can be applied to the District or that 

Congress can legislatively accomplish 

for the District what the Constitution 

accomplishes for States. Congress, for 

example, has authority to regulate 

commerce among the several States. 

The Supreme Court held in 1889 that 

this applies to the District. Do opponents of giving the District a House 

seat believe Congress cannot regulate 

commerce involving the District? 

The original Constitution provided 

that direct taxes shall be apportioned 

among the several States. The Supreme Court held in 1820 that Congress’ 

legislative authority over the District 

allows taxation of the District. Do opponents of giving the District a House 

seat believe that the District is suitable for taxation but not for representation? 

The Constitution provides that federal courts may review lawsuits between citizens of different States. The 

Supreme Court held in 1805 that Congress can legislatively extend this to 

the District even though the Constitution does not. 

The list goes on involving provisions 

of the Constitution, statues, and even 

treaties. Over and over, courts have 

ruled either that provisions framed in 

terms of States can be directly applied 

to the District or that Congress can 

legislatively do so. Perhaps opponents 

of giving the District a House seat believe that all of these decisions over 

more than two centuries were wrong, 

that the word States begins and ends 

the discussion in every case. They cannot say so in the present case without 

confronting those precedents. 

These and other considerations which 

I discussed in the article I mentioned 

have led me to conclude that the Constitution allows Congress legislatively 

to provide a House seat for the District. I do want to repeat my continuing opposition to District representation in the Senate. The District’s 

status as a non-State jurisdiction is 

not relevant to representation in the 

House, which was designed to represent 

people, but it is relevant to representation in the Senate, which was designed 

to represent states. I would once again 

emphasize that the bill introduced 

today explicitly disclaims Senate representation for the District. 

In December 2006, I signed a letter to 

the majority and minority leaders expressing the same position I had taken 

three decades earlier. It stated that 

while there are many differences between Utah and the District, to be 

sure, they share the right to be represented in our country’s legislature. I 

take the same position today, believing 

that Congress may and should pass the 

bill introduced today to provide for 

that representation. 

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am 

proud to cosponsor the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2009 

to end the unfair treatment of District 

of Columbia residents and give them 

voting representation in the House of 

Representatives. For over 200 hundred 

years, the residents of the District of 

Columbia have been denied a voting 

Member representing their views in 

Congress. That is wrong, and I hope the 

Senate will consider this important 

issue early this year to remedy the disenfranchisement that residents of our 

Nation’s capital have endured. 

When the Senate considered this legislation last Congress the Republican 

minority chose to filibuster the bill. 

While a majority favored it, we fell 

short of the 60 votes needed to end the 

filibuster and pass it. Earlier that year, 

however, the House of Representatives 

worked in a bipartisan manner to pass 

a version of a voting rights bill for the 

District of Columbia led by Congresswoman ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON. As a 

young lawyer, she worked for civil 

rights and voting rights around the 

country. It is a cruel irony that upon 

her return to the District of Columbia, 

and her election to the House of Representatives, she does not yet have the 

right to vote on behalf of the people of 

the District of Columbia who elected 

her. She is a strong voice in Congress, 

but the citizens living in the Nation’s 

capital deserve a vote, as well. 

The bill introduced today would give 

the District of Columbia delegate a 

vote in the House. It would give Utah a 

fourth seat in the House as well. Last 

Congress, the Judiciary Committee 

held hearings on a similar measure and 

we heard compelling testimony from 

constitutional experts. They testified 

that this legislation is constitutional, 

and highlighted the fact that 

Congress’s greater power to confer 

statehood on the District certainly 

contains the lesser one, the power to 

grant District residents voting rights 

in the House of Representatives. Congress has repeatedly treated the District of Columbia as a ‘‘State’’ for various purposes. Congresswoman ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON testified that although ‘‘the District is not a State,’’ 

the ‘‘Congress has not had the slightest 

difficulty in treating the District as a 

State, with its laws, its treaties, and 

for constitutional purposes.’’ Examples 

of these actions include a revision of 

the Judiciary Act of 1789 that broadened Article III diversity jurisdiction 

to include citizens of the District even 

though the Constitution only provides 

that Federal courts may hear cases 

‘‘between citizens of different States.’’ 

Congress has also treated the District 

as a ‘‘State’’ for purposes of congressional power to regulate commerce 

‘‘among the several States.’’ The Sixteenth Amendment grants Congress 

the power to directly tax incomes 

‘‘without apportionment among the 

several States,’’ but has been interpreted also to apply to residents of the 

District. In fact, the District of Columbia pays the second highest Federal 

taxes per capita without any say in 

how those dollars are spent. 

I believe that this legislation is within Congress’s powers as provided in the 

Constitution. I agree with Congressman JOHN LEWIS, Congresswoman NORTON and numerous other civil rights 

leaders and constitutional scholars 

that we should extend the basic right 

of voting representation to the hundreds of thousands of Americans residing in the District of Columbia. These 

Americans pay Federal taxes, defend 

our country in the military and serve 

on Federal juries. 

This is an historic measure that 

holds great significance within the 

civil rights community and for the 

residents of the District of Columbia. I 

urge Senators to do what is right and 

to support this bill when it comes to 

the floor for full Senate consideration. 

Over 50 years ago, the Senate 

overrode filibusters to pass the Civil 

Rights Acts of 1957 and 1964 and the 

Voting Rights Act of 1965. Congressman 

LEWIS, a courageous leader during 

those transformational struggles decades ago, gave moving testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee 

last Congress in which he reminded us 

that ‘‘we in Congress must do all we 

can to inspire a new generation to fulfill the mission of equal justice.’’ The 

Senate should continue to fight for the 

fundamental rights of all Americans 

and stand united in serving this noble 

purpose. No person’s right to vote 

should be abridged, suppressed or denied in the United States of America. 

Let us move forward together and provide full voting rights for the citizens 

in our Nation’s capital. 

By Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself, 

Mr. MCCAIN, Mrs. MCCASKILL, 

Mr. GRAHAM, and Mr. COBURN.) 

S. 162. A bill to provide greater accountability of taxpayers’ dollars by 

curtailing congressional earmarking, 

and for other purposes; to the Committee on Rules and Administration. 

Mr. FEINGOLD. Mr. President, I am 

pleased to join with the senior Senator 

from Arizona, Mr. MCCAIN, the junior 

Senator from Missouri, Mrs. 

MCCASKILL, the junior Senator from 

Oklahoma, Mr. COBURN, and the senior 

Senator from South Carolina, Mr. 

GRAHAM, in introducing the Fiscal Discipline, Earmark Reform, and Accountability Act of 2009. Senator MCCAIN has 

been one of the preeminent champions 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with SENATE