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