Date: 2007-03-22
Speaker: TOM DAVIS (republican)
Chamber: H
State: Virginia

Madam Speaker. it igs often said that if opportunity doesnt knock. build a door. With this bill. we are doing just that. Using the materials at hand today. we can open a portal to full democratic participation that for too long has remained locked. The circumstances are right. the stars are aligned. and the proposal is sound. Four years ago. we saw a confluence of events that set the stage for the compromise we have before us today. Two injustices met to create this opportunity to correct both. On the one hand. a longignored historical anomaly denies the citizens of the District of Columbia voting representation in the House of Representatives.. On the other hand. a more recent problem with the census denies the citizens of Utah the additional House vote that a true count would have yielded. As it happens. one jurisdiction is predominantly Democratic. the other predominantly Republican. The circumstances opened the way to a politically neutral solution to both problems. Throughout our Nations history. it has been just this kind of winwin compromise that. however rooted in the fleeting circumstances of the day. provide enduring solutions to seemingly intractable problems. Each of us swears to uphold the Coistitution. its letter and spirit. That living document is at its heart the most fundamental right of citizens in a democracy. All the citizens. So we rely on the plenary power found in the District clause to restore the full right of citizenship to our disenfranchised countrymen and women. After researching every possible avenue to right these wrongs and give the citizens of the District of Columbia and Utah. the next State that is eligible for a vote under the formula. the representation to which they are entitled. we concluded the approach before us today is both constitutionally sound and politically viable. The former is our sworn duty. The latter is a practical imperative. In 4 years. I have found no evidence that any Member of this body seriously plans to attempt retrocession or campaign for a constitutional amendment. There is a good reason for that: they are politically. not viable. Most Members. including me. dont waste their time tilting at windmills. � By now. every Member is aware of the constitutional arguments. I ask that you think carefully about what you hear today. Every firstyear law student in this country learns that you cant just read the Constitution once over literally to figure out what it means. But that is what the other sides arguments are. That is where it stops. and that is wherje it starts. Those opposing this bill ignore 200 years of case law and clear instruction from the Court that this is a congressional matter and requires a congressional solution. Under their literal reading of the Constitution. District residents would have no right to a jury trial under the sixth amendment because you have to be a State to have that right. D.C. residents would have no right to sue people from outside D.C. in the Federal courts. only people from States have that right under Article II. section 2. The full faith and credit clause would not apply to D.C- because that only applies to States under a literal reading of the Constitution. And the Federal Government would not be allowed to impose Federal taxes on the District. The Constitution says direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States. Article I. section 2. clause 3. But in each of these cases. the Supreme Court has held that Congress can consider the District a State for purposes of applying these fundamental provisions. If Congress has the authority to do so regarding these lesser rights and duty. there should be no question we have the same authority to protect the most sacred right of every American: to live and participate in a representative Republic. It should also be pointed out that Congress granted voting representation in 1790 when it accepted the land that would become the Federal city. It then removed those rights. by statute. 10 years later. Those facts are undisputed. -No amendment to the Constitution was considered necessary then. And those opposing the bill today will not explain. only assert. the claimed need for a constitutional amendment to reverse a decision that was made through enactment of a statute. This problem should be solved. A lot of people today will talk about the Framers and tell us that the Framers intended for the Federal city to have no direct representation. Do you really believe that if the capital had stayed in New York. the city would have been disenfranchised? Do you believe that if the capital had stayed in Philadelphia. the city would have been disenfranchised? Of course not. and neither should the people of Washington. D.C. What we know is men and women who fought and died to create this country were willing to die for people who might disagree with them politically. D.C. residents are paying Federal taxes. They are fighting and dying in the Middle East to bring democracy to that part of the world. This is no mere legal or political science exercise. Its a crisis. Your fellow Americans are being denied the full rights and benefits of representative government. We have before us this unique moment in our history. the opportunity to fulfill the promise of the Constitution and make our democracy whole again. I hope we hear opportunity knocking. and I hope we hear the faint. but unmistakable whisper of conscience and of history. urging us all to seize the moment with courage and humility. [From the Washington Post. Mar. 14. 2007]