<DOC> [108th Congress House Hearings] [From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access] [DOCID: f:96625.wais] COMMON SENSE JUSTICE FOR THE NATION'S CAPITAL: AN EXAMINATION OF PROPOSALS TO GIVE D.C. RESIDENTS DIRECT REPRESENTATION ======================================================================= HEARING before the COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION __________ JUNE 23, 2004 __________ Serial No. 108-218 __________ Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/congress/house http://www.house.gov/reform ______ U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 96-625 WASHINGTON : 2004 ____________________________________________________________________________ For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512ÿ091800 Fax: (202) 512ÿ092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402ÿ090001 COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM TOM DAVIS, Virginia, Chairman DAN BURTON, Indiana HENRY A. WAXMAN, California CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut TOM LANTOS, California ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida MAJOR R. OWENS, New York JOHN M. McHUGH, New York EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York JOHN L. MICA, Florida PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland DOUG OSE, California DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio RON LEWIS, Kentucky DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois JO ANN DAVIS, Virginia JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri CHRIS CANNON, Utah DIANE E. WATSON, California ADAM H. PUTNAM, Florida STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts EDWARD L. SCHROCK, Virginia CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California NATHAN DEAL, Georgia C.A. ``DUTCH'' RUPPERSBERGER, CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan Maryland TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio Columbia JOHN R. CARTER, Texas JIM COOPER, Tennessee MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio ------ KATHERINE HARRIS, Florida BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont (Independent) Melissa Wojciak, Staff Director David Marin, Deputy Staff Director/Communications Director Rob Borden, Parliamentarian Teresa Austin, Chief Clerk Phil Barnett, Minority Chief of Staff/Chief Counsel C O N T E N T S ---------- Page Hearing held on June 23, 2004.................................... 1 Statement of: Henderson, Wade, esq., executive director, Leadership Conference on Civil Rights; Kenneth W. Starr, former solicitor general of the United States; former Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit; Ilir Zherka, executive director, D.C. Vote; Walter Smith, executive director, D.C. Appleseed Center for Law and Justice, Inc.; Betsy W. Werronen, chairwoman, the District of Columbia Republican Committee; and Ted Trabue, regional vice president for District of Columbia affairs, PEPCO; Greater Washington Board of Trade.......................... 63 Rohrabacher, Hon. Dana, a Representative in Congress from the State of California; and Hon. Ralph Regula, a Representative in Congress from the State of Ohio.......... 3 Williams, Anthony A., Mayor, District of Columbia; and Linda W. Cropp, chairwoman, Council of the District of Columbia.. 30 Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by: Cannon, Hon. Chris, a Representative in Congress from the State of Utah, prepared statement of....................... 53 Clay, Hon. Wm. Lacy, a Representative in Congress from the State of Missouri, prepared statement of................... 174 Cropp, Linda W., chairwoman, Council of the District of Columbia, prepared statement of............................ 39 Davis, Chairman Tom, a Representative in Congress from the State of Virginia, prepared statement of................... 20 Henderson, Wade, esq., executive director, Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, prepared statement of.......... 67 Norton, Hon. Eleanor Holmes, a Representative in Congress from the District of Columbia, information concerning party planks..................................................... 165 Regula, Hon. Ralph, a Representative in Congress from the State of Ohio, prepared statement of....................... 12 Rohrabacher, Hon. Dana, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, prepared statement of................. 5 Smith, Walter, executive director, D.C. Appleseed Center for Law and Justice, Inc., prepared statement of............... 92 Starr, Kenneth W., former solicitor general of the United States; former Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, prepared statement of........ 77 Trabue, Ted, regional vice president for District of Columbia affairs, PEPCO; Greater Washington Board of Trade, prepared statement of............................................... 158 Werronen, Betsy W., chairwoman, the District of Columbia Republican Committee: Information concerning Republicans and D.C. voting rights 126 Prepared statement of.................................... 154 Williams, Anthony A., Mayor, District of Columbia, prepared statement of............................................... 33 Zherka, Ilir, executive director, D.C. Vote, prepared statement of............................................... 87 COMMON SENSE JUSTICE FOR THE NATION'S CAPITAL: AN EXAMINATION OF PROPOSALS TO GIVE D.C. RESIDENTS DIRECT REPRESENTATION ---------- WEDNESDAY, JUNE 23, 2004 House of Representatives, Committee on Government Reform, Washington, DC. The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m., in room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Tom Davis (chairman of the committee) presiding. Present: Representatives Tom Davis of Virginia, Shays, Lewis, Cannon, Blackburn, Waxman, Maloney, Cummings, Davis of Illinois, Clay, Watson, Van Hollen, Ruppersberger, and Norton. Staff present: David Marin, deputy staff director and communications director; Keith Ausbrook, chief counsel; Ellen Brown, legislative director and senior policy counsel; Howie Denis and Jim Moore, counsels; Robert Borden, counsel and parliamentarian; Rob White, press secretary; Drew Crockett, deputy director of communications; Teresa Austin, chief clerk; Brien Beattie, deputy clerk; Corinne Zaccagnini, chief information officer; Phil Barnett, minority staff director; Kristin Amerling, minority deputy chief counsel; Karen Lightfoot, minority communications director/senior policy advisor; Michelle Ash, minority senior legislative counsel; Rosalind Parker, minority counsel; Earley Green, minority chief clerk; Jean Gosa, minority assistant clerk; and Cecelia Morton, minority office manager. Chairman Tom Davis. Good morning. I'm going to give an opening statement, and Mr. Waxman has to leave. Dana, I'm going to go to Mr. Waxman's statement then we'll go to you, then I'll give an opening statement. Thanks for being here. I'm conscious of your time and when Mr. Regula gets in, conscious of his. We appreciate your being here. Mr. Waxman. Mr. Waxman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to give my opening statement before you give yours and Mr. Rohrabacher, thank you as well. I appreciate the fact that we're having this hearing, unfortunately I'm going to have a conflict between the time, so I'm not going to be able to be here for this full hearing. But I want everyone to know that I think the chairman is doing a great service by holding this hearing. I think it's important that we look at the issue of voting rights for D.C. citizens. I am a strong supporter of giving the District of Columbia congressional representation. This hearing to review all the legislative proposals is an important step forward. I welcome all the discussion that will lead to equal voting rights for District residents. We should not deny voting representation to over half a million American citizens who live in Washington, DC, have no voting representation on national issues considered by Congress. They have no representation on issues of taxation or warmaking authority, foreign policy, spending on transportation initiatives, homeland security, health and welfare and the environment. These national issues affect the people of the District of Columbia just like they affect other people who are our constituents around this country. In addition, often Congress passes measures such as the recent school voucher law, directed specifically and exclusively at D.C. residents. Yet the residents of the District have a limited voice in the passage. To make matters worse, laws passed by the locally elected D.C. City Council must be sent to Congress for review. In fact, some non- controversial items were on the House floor earlier this week, and we were able to move them quickly. But officially, Congress sometimes refuses to approve measures passed by the D.C. City Council, and has even overturned citizen passed ballot initiatives. The residents of other local jurisdictions do not have Congress overturning their local laws or prohibiting those laws from taking effect in the first place. Eleanor Holmes Norton does an incredible job for the District of Columbia. Without the ability to cast a vote on the House floor, she has been able to achieve stunning results for the District. However, non-voting representation is not acceptable. I have supported her legislation to give the District of Columbia representation in the House and the Senate, and I believe that if we can't do both, we ought to put out on the House floor a bill to give the D.C. residents a vote in the House of Representatives. I don't think it ought to be tied with anything else. It is a matter of great sense and consistent with our values as a Nation to give democracy to the people of the District of Columbia. The leadership of the House is willing to spend billions of dollars to try to bring democracy to Iraq. Why not allow a vote on the House floor to give the District of Columbia representation? The only reason I've heard is that they're afraid that the District of Columbia may elect a Republican. Well, that's not a reason to deny people--[laughter]--I stand corrected. If they only would recognize the fact that maybe even a Republican can win in the District of Columbia. But the fact that the D.C. residents who voted in other elections are predominantly Democratic should not be a reason to deny them the ability to have over half a million people get a representative in the House itself. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate all your efforts. I know you are strongly committed to this equal rights for the District of Columbia, and I look forward to working with you on it. Chairman Tom Davis. Mr. Waxman, thank you very much. I'm going to go right now, we have our distinguished congressional panel here, Representative Regula, Chairman Regula and Chairman Rohrabacher, both chairmen of important subcommittees. And Dana, you were here first, I'll let you start, and we'll go to Mr. Regula. Then we'll go back to opening statements, then we have the Mayor and Chairman Cropp in the next panel. But let me just say, we appreciate both of you being here today. You both have innovative ideas and recognize that citizens of the city should have representation. You have innovative ideas about how to get that, and we appreciate your sharing those thoughts with us. STATEMENTS OF HON. DANA ROHRABACHER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA; AND HON. RALPH REGULA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to compliment you for your concern about the lack of congressional representation for the residents of our Nation's capital. No taxation without representation is a fundamental principle of our democratic society which since our founding has continually expanded the voting franchise. Today, thanks to the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act, there is nowhere in the world that a U.S. citizen can move to, still owing Federal income tax and lose their rights to voting representation in the U.S. Congress, nowhere except, of course, our Nation's Capital, Washington, DC. I think that virtually every Member of this body, Republican or Democrat, who thinks about the situation would agree that it needs to be remedied. The dispute is not over whether D.C. residents should have voting representation, but over what form that representation should take. Naturally I believe that my own proposal, H.R. 3709, the District of Columbia Voting Rights Restoration Act, is the fairest and most practical of the solutions. As its name suggests, H.R. 3709 would restore to Washington, DC, residents the same voting rights they had prior to Congress taking them away by the passage of the Organic Act of 1801. Under my Restoration Act, residents of our Nation's Capital would once again have the right to vote for, to run for, and to serve as, Maryland's U.S. Senators, U.S. Representatives and Presidential electors. And to provide some partisan balance, the Restoration Act adopts your idea, Mr. Chairman, of providing an additional representative for Utah. In addition to my bill, I am also submitting for your consideration legislative language that I believe will remove the issue on Utah redistricting as an impediment to moving forward D.C. voting rights. This language simply locks into place until after the next census the four district map that Utah has already enacted. Since that map is understood by all sides to be a three to one plan, it should erase the fears of the Democratic leadership that including Utah in a D.C. representation bill would provide an undue Republican advantage. Mr. Chairman, I could go on about the details of my bill, and I have attached questions and answers to my testimony that further describe H.R. 3709, but that's not what's the most important thing at this moment. What's most important is to get the bipartisan support to move a District of Columbia representation bill to the House floor, so that alternative proposals can be considered, and so that we finally can give the residents of the District of Columbia full and fair congressional representation. And finally, let me just note, Mr. Chairman, that I think it's sad that politics has gotten in the way of the voting rights of the people of the District of Columbia. But politics and democracy so often go together. We have to recognize that's part of the system that we live in. So let's try to find a way to take care of everybody's political problems and let's move forward in a way that will result in the people of the District of Columbia finally at last receiving their rights to vote for congressional representation and yes, and why don't we give them rights to vote for U.S. Senators as well? So thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. [The prepared statement of Hon. Dana Rohrabacher follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.007 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.008 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.009 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.010 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.011 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.012 Chairman Tom Davis. Dana, thank you very much. You've obviously given this a lot of thought. Your entire statement and the accompanying Q&A will be entered into the record. We appreciate it very much. Mr. Regula, thank you very much for being with us. Chairman Regula is a veteran of the old D.C. Committee, is that correct? Mr. Regula. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Tom Davis. You're welcome to come back here and sit any time you want. Mr. Regula. I have been several times. Mr. Regula. I'll summarize my testimony in the interest of time. I will say that I sat on the District of Columbia Appropriations Committee for several years, so I have some experience with it. Basically what I'm proposing is that it be a retrocession of D.C. into the State of Maryland from whence it came. We did a similar thing in the case of Virginia. This would allow the city to be a city in the State of Maryland. They therefore would be able to vote on State legislators, they would be able to vote on two U.S. Senators, and they'd be able to have a Congressperson representing basically the geographical area covered by the District of Columbia. I think there are other advantages. It would give the city access to the State of Maryland's educational program. That would enhance the support for education at all levels. It would give the city, the residents of the city access to economic development programs of the State of Maryland. It would give them access to the Highway Department of the State of Maryland and a whole host of other State agencies. I think in the interest of the residents, they would be best served by this approach it, while it does give them the voting rights that they seek. I think it's the only practical solution. Statehood is nice to talk about, but I don't anticipate that it's going to happen. By doing the retrocession program, the residents would benefit in all the different ways I suggested. Can it work? It works in Canada, where the city is part of the larger area, and yet has its own identity. It works in Rome, where the Vatican is carved out as a separate political subdivision. So I think this has a potential for working and has a potential for giving the residents voting rights, as well as quality of life issues that could be very helpful to them. I'll be glad to answer any questions. [The prepared statement of Hon. Ralph Regula follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.013 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.014 Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you both very much. Let me just say, Representative Regula, you've been a long time supporter of voting rights for the District. Representative Rohrabacher, you obviously put a lot of thought and hard work into this, and your staff has, and you're also a veteran of the D.C. Committee. I want to give you appropriate thanks for that. Dana, one of your interesting aspects of your plan is that it makes Maryland election law applicable within the District for the House and Senate elections, and you have some home rule advocates, you obviously have to sift through that, there's a lot of thought in the city about those. But at least you took care of the voting representation part at the national level. Do you want to address that at all? Mr. Rohrabacher. Home rule is addressed in this as well. There's no taking away home rule from the people of the District. That's within my legislation. Chairman Tom Davis. Mr. Regula, one of the issues that comes up with yours is you're basically retrocession except for, what would it be, like the Mall area, is that what we're looking at? Mr. Regula. Yes, it's what we carve out, and it's what they've done in Canada, carve out the governmental portions. When I say government, the U.S. Government. So that the areas, like along the Mall, would be retained as Federal property, and it would be the balance of the area that would become a city in the State of Maryland. Chairman Tom Davis. Interestingly, I've just remembered how we got here. It was 221 years and 2 days ago that the Philadelphia Mutiny, it was June 21, 1783--221 years ago--that the Mutiny appeared. This is when a group of pensioners from the Revolutionary War marched on the Continental Congress in Philadelphia, and it was the local militia that were sympathetic to the pensioners. They chased the Continental Congress across the river up into Trenton. It was at that point they considered it a Federal city, they didn't want it to be under the control of any city. That's what started this. We missed by 2 days, the hearing today, the anniversary, the 221st anniversary of that, it was called the Philadelphia Mutiny. Ralph, one of the interesting aspects you bring out that we have to address is the fact that the District still has three electoral votes in the Constitution. I was thinking we could build a condominium in there, fill it up with our friends and we could control three electoral votes at that point. D.C. could be part of Maryland and they could have voting representation and we could control the action every 4 years. [Laughter.] Mr. Regula. I think that should be addressed. Chairman Tom Davis. Nothing smooth, nothing's 100 percent smooth. Mr. Regula. Alexandria, as I said, came from retrocession to Virginia. Chairman Tom Davis. That's correct. There's the precedent. And as a matter of fact, Constitutionally it was never approved by the courts. But I think by the doctrine of laches, it would stay today if it were challenged. There are some Virginians who would like to give it back. But I'm not sure if the city would want it. But we don't need to go there. Mr. Rohrabacher. The people voting, if what we're talking about becomes law, of course will then have the understanding that their vote counts toward the electors in Maryland, and they actually have, they may have more influence on candidates rather than less influence. Chairman Tom Davis. That's right. Also, I note that from 1790 to 1800, Dana, the residents of the District of Columbia who lived in Virginia voted with Virginia for Congress and in Maryland with Maryland for Congress. So we have that precedent that's consistent. Ms. Norton, any questions? Ms. Norton. I want to thank both of my good friends for their work on these two bills. I served with Mr. Rohrabacher on the old D.C. Subcommittee, and with Mr. Regula when he was on the D.C. Appropriations Subcommittee. These are Members, and among the few Members, who know the District very well in all of its details, because they have served on the committees, learned them and both were of considerable service to our city. As I will say, you of course have particularly in this last week in the Congress a lot else to do in this House. But I am going to make mention in my own opening statement for the gratitude I think the District of Columbia residents owe you in coming forward with bills. What we now have is a bipartisan consensus, there's got to be some approach. And here we've got three Republican bills, not my bill alone, but three bills, and not bills that have been put in politically, but bills by two Members who have thought deeply about the District. And I want it to be clear, from a Member who knows, that each of these approaches has support in the District of Columbia. Residents of the District of Columbia have been in touch with me, and even have come to meetings in my office. So the notion of leaping about where District residents are is something I certainly am unwilling to do. But the importance of these two bills is not that I have joined these bills, I have not endorsed these bills. I am not a co-sponsor of these new bills that have come in. But I went to the House floor when Mr. Regula and Mr. Rohrabacher put their bills in, in order to thank them before the full House for how they have advanced the cause of voting rights. We will never get to voting rights unless Republicans and Democrats sit down together and finally agree on a bill we all can agree upon. Therefore, the actions of these two Members who have particular knowledge of the District of Columbia to step forward is to be greeted, and I assure you will be greeted with great applause in the District of Columbia. You have today in coming forward to testify here, having given your own bills already, materially and very substantially advanced the cause of D.C. voting rights, and I want to personally thank each of you for what you've done. Mr. Rohrabacher. Thank you. Mr. Regula. Thank you. Chairman Tom Davis. I want to thank you both, two very well respected senior Republican Members. Thank you very much. Mr. Rohrabacher. Let me just note, when I was on the District of Columbia Committee, Chairman Dellums was my chairman. And of course, that's when the Democratic Party controlled the House of Representatives. Let me just note that Chairman Dellums was very fair to me personally on that committee, and I think he handled himself in a very dignified way in that we all got our say. I've been in some committees at times when I didn't feel like I was fairly treated. But in that committee, it really was, he did a good job. And what's important here is that politics over the years have gotten in the way of solving this problem. And not just politics on one side of the aisle, politics on both sides of the aisle, both parties have been maneuvering on this issue. Well, I think the approach that Mr. Regula and I have come up with in both of our proposals wipes away that politics, wipes away that problem and gives us a chance at both sides to come to a compromise that will end up giving the people of this city their rights for representation. And so it's about time we get on with it. Mr. Regula. I'd just like to comment on that. The important thing for the young people of this community is to have access to the finest education, as is the case throughout the Nation. I believe that one of these approaches could enhance the educational opportunity prospectively for the people of this city. Chairman Tom Davis. Well said. Thank you both for your time. Thank you very much. Before we get to our next panel, I'm going to read my opening statement. Ms. Norton, we'll go to yours, and I'll allow other Members to make opening statements or include them in the record. The District of Columbia is many things to many people. Home to more than half a million people of diverse backgrounds, capital of the free world, and a symbol of democracy. But perhaps most fundamentally, it is a creature of the Constitution. The District's unique Constitutional status and historic evolution and the fact that it has characteristics of a city and a State, in addition to its Federal component, leaves us with one of the most profound democratic paradoxes of our time: how to reconcile the framer's vision for the Nation's Capital with their aim to establish a republican form of government in the new United States when the citizens of the Federal city lacked the primary tool of democratic participation--representation in the national legislature. For many years, I've acknowledged publicly that there's an unacceptable contradiction between the democratic ideals on which this country was founded and the District's exclusion from true congressional representation. Let's be real, how can you argue with a straight face that D.C. should not have some direct congressional representation? For more than two centuries, D.C. residents have fought in 10 wars and paid billions of dollars in Federal taxes. They have sacrificed and shed blood to help bring democratic freedoms to people in distant lands. But here at the symbolic apex of democracy, they lack what is arguably the most fundamental right of all. For the past year and a half, my staff and I have undertaken an intellectual and political journey to learn more about the interaction between the Constitution and the District. As we studied the problem, the lack of direct congressional representation, we focused on two prime requirements for any plan to be found acceptable. First, it needed to be permissible under the Constitution. Second, it needed to be politically achievable in the current political environment. Today we want to discuss four legislative proposals for giving the District direct representation in Congress, including my own. All of these plans share one central characteristic. Instead of relying on courts to find some latent Constitutional authority to force representation--which, to date, they have firmly declined to do--instead of proposing a drawn-out, dead on arrival Constitutional amendment process, each requires Congress to take legislative action to remedy the situation, that's what the plans before us today do. One of the plans we'll hear about today requires Congress to treat the District as a State and grant the District full representation in both the House and Senate. One would allow the people of the District to vote with the people of the State of Maryland in House and Senate elections. Another gives the State of Maryland most of the District except for the central Federal core of the city. Each of these proposals is commendable, recognizing the untenable justice of the current situation. Each reflects or illuminates the Constitutional authority granted to Congress in the District Clause, and each is worthy of careful study and debate. I'm offering a fourth plan that I believe is not only Constitutionally viable but also politically feasible. Our plan is relatively simple: treat the District as a congressional district for the purpose of allowing the people of the District to elect a full, voting member of the House of Representatives. Second, increase political palatability, increase the size of the House of Representatives by 2, to 437, until reapportionment for the 2012 election. My plan would not affect the makeup of the Senate in any way, nor would it affect the operation of the 23rd amendment that gives the District three electoral votes in any way. This plan is a reasonable effort to give the people of the District fair and full representation in one House. I believe there is a sound basis in the Constitution that Congress has the power under the District Clause in Article I, Section 8, to provide for such representation. The District Clause itself confers extremely broad authority over the District on Congress. Congress' authority is ``exclusive'' and covers ``all cases, whatsoever,'' in the District. Article I, Section 2 that establishes the House provides that Members of the House are to be elected by the people of the several States.'' I believe this reference to the several States should not be construed to preclude voting by the people of the District, but under the authority of the District Clause to permit Congress to allow it should Congress decide to do so. After all, at the time this requirement was established, there was no District of Columbia, only the people of the several States, which included people who would become citizens of the District of Columbia. This description of the House and the people who would vote for House Members, when considered in conjunction with Congress' broad authority under the District Clause, does not establish that the framers intended to foreclose Congress' authority to permit representation in the House of all the people of the States that would comprise the Nation. But these considerations and others will be addressed more fully by the analysis provided for the committee by Viet Dinh. By increasing the size of the House by two until reapportionment for the 2012 election, we make this plan politically viable. Let's be blunt: I don't feel it's a sign of weakness in our system to have to consider politics as part of the process. To ignore politics is to ignore the primary motivating force of governmental life up here. Political considerations are neither good nor bad, they're simply there and have to be dealt with. In this situation, the current apportionment allows us to increase the House in a balanced fashion, as we have done throughout the Nation's history. By adding two seats and reapportioning seats in the House, it's expected the other seat will fall to the next State in line, which in this case would be Utah. It's not unreasonable to assume that a Republican would likely win this new seat. This is the politically neutral approach. This is the way to take the partisan sting out of doing what is right. And I was intrigued by Mr. Rohrabacher's attitude and suggestion, Ms. Norton, that when we put the bill in, we redistrict Utah as a part of this bill in a politically acceptable way. Maybe that's something we can look at as we move forward. These people are thinking about this. They're excited about this and they're trying to find a way around the problem. We haven't seen that up here for a long time on a compelling issue. Finally, I want to point out that this sort of bill is only likely to succeed during the middle years between reapportionment, at a time when it's impossible to determine accurately which States will gain and which States will lose after the next census, in this case, the 2010 census. We have a short period of maybe 3, 4 years where we can do great good by giving the District full representation in the House, and the States won't game it, saying will they win or lose by the District taking a 435th seat in the House away from one State or another. Who knows when this confluence of circumstances will occur again? Will it take decades, will it take centuries? We may never be able to pay so small a price to remove so large an injustice again. Now is the time to act. Americans set the standards for democracy and democratic principles for the rest of the world. It's our duty and honor to set a sterling example. Failing to permit some 550,000 hard working, patriotic, tax paying residents of the Nation's Capital to vote in Congress is so difficult to rationalize because it is, at its core, anti-democratic. Will moving forward with any of the measures before us today be easy? Not at all. But I have great faith in my colleagues and their willingness to let reason prevail. We need to forge consensus among Members with disparate views. Congress will ultimately grant voting rights to the District of Columbia, because it's really no more complex than this: it's the right thing to do. We welcome today, and we're pleased to hear from Representative Ralph Regula of Ohio and Representative Dana Rohrabacher. We're also honored in our next panel to have with us the Mayor of Washington, DC, who has restored so much of this city, Anthony Williams, and the Chairwoman of the Council, Linda Cropp, who does such an able job there. Finally, we're honored to have a distinguished third panel that I'll introduce at the appropriate time to share their views on the plans that have been offered. All of these witnesses have made significant sacrifices to join us today, and their presence is greatly appreciated. I would now recognize Ms. Norton for an opening statement. [The prepared statement of Chairman Tom Davis follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.002 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.003 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.004 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.005 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.006 Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I begin by expressing my deep appreciation to Chairman Tom Davis for the attention and commitment he has given to D.C. voting rights since coming to Congress. In his caucus, the chairman has tried to achieve the return of the delegate vote in the committee of the whole by the majority. And now he has introduced his own bill for fuller voting rights in the House. Representative Ralph Regula, who previously served on the D.C. Appropriations Subcommittee, has introduced H.R. 381, a bill for full voting rights in the House and Senate. Representative Dana Rohrabacher, who served on the old D.C. Subcommittee, has introduced H.R. 3709 for full voting rights in the House and the Senate. District residents have consistently insisted upon equal rights in Congress since 1801, when the 10-year transition of land donated by Maryland and Virginia was completed. Congress took control of the District of Columbia, and by refusing to act, stripped American citizens living in the new capital of rights they had always enjoyed in common with other citizens. The denial of now more than 200 years betrayed the intention of the Constitutional framers, who were careful to leave these rights in place during the transitional years. My own efforts, joined by many in the House and Senate, are the most recent of many attempts ever since to return to the original intent of the framers. The two most important of these attempts for the support they have received from Congress are the Statehood bill, the New Columbia Statehood Act of 1993, and the current congressional Voting Rights bill. In 1993, there was a historic 2 day debate on the Statehood bill on the House floor. And in a final vote of the full House, almost two-thirds of the Democrats and one Republican voted for the bill. However, thereafter, the District became insolvent, and in order to recover, turned over some State costs to the Federal Government, making statehood impossible for now. I then introduced the No Taxation Without Representation Act, because whether or not the city carried all State costs, or qualified to become a State, it contributes the second highest rate of taxes to support our Government, and residents have fought and died in every war, more than qualifying them for full voting rights in the House and the Senate. The significance of today's hearing should not be lost, should not be over-emphasized and should not be understated. None of the bills before us has anything close to the necessary support in Congress, and all raise a plethora of questions to be answered. The process we embark upon today is one of steps, not leaps. The Congress does not make great leaps. The importance of today's hearing is this: it represents the most important breakthrough for congressional voting rights in more than 30 years, because it marks the first bipartisan support for D.C. congressional voting rights since the Congress passed a voting rights amendment to give the District of Columbia a House and two votes in the Senate. Before us is not only my bill, the No Taxation Without Representation Act, but three other D.C. voting rights bills, filed by senior Republicans who all enjoy great respect in the House. Considering the recent partisan history of D.C. voting rights in the Congress, with only a Democratic bill filed for years, the return of bipartisanship, even with sharply different bills, is a major step and an indispensable predicate to achieving these rights. Until now, we have not had the consensus we have now achieved on the principle of voting representation itself. When Members of both parties file bills on the same subject, the underlying cause is substantially and undeniably advanced. Some of the bills may not be as familiar as others to the general public or to the press. But my constituents communicate regularly with me on voting rights, and therefore I am quite aware that all four approaches enjoy some support among D.C. residents. However, far greater exposure of all these approaches is necessary, because most residents, including most D.C. elected officials, have little more than surface knowledge of these bills, because they have had to draw their views from a title or quick summary of a bill and because there have been no hearings on these bills. Today's hearing is a good beginning to inform and educate residents and officials about what our options are. And I intend to hold a town meeting to facilitate even deeper knowledge of all four approaches. As immensely grateful as I am for these bills, I have not endorsed or co-sponsored any except my own. To do so at this time would be premature. None of the sponsors suggest that these bills are ripe, that residents are familiar with their contents or that they do not raise fair questions that remain to be answered. D.C. residents and elected officials are entitled to much more information that ranges from the Constitutional to the pragmatic. The questions that may be raised about the No Taxation Without Representation Act are better known. But here is a sample of questions about each of the three other bills. Is H.R. 381, the Retrocession Bill, which requires Maryland to agree to the return of the District, achievable politically or as a practical matter? Is H.R. 3709, which treats D.C. residents as Maryland citizens for purposes of representation, Constitutional in light of the Constitutional requirement that residents be, that members who represent a district be actual residents of their State? Does the House only bill continue to have one Democrat, one Republican symmetry that was the reason that it seemed politically viable in the first place in light of the bitter redistricting battles that recently emerged to reverse representation in several districts, using unprecedented redistricting by the State in the middle of the decade? To put it another way, in light of the Constitutional authority of the States alone to redistrict, without interference from the Congress, is there a way Constitutionally to guarantee how individual members of any State legislature would vote on redistricting, and to lock in the political neutrality that is the only reason a vote in the House only would be attractive? I think it should be said that I have the most to gain perhaps by winning a full House vote on my watch, a cause to which I have devoted many waking hours. But I recognize that my primary obligation is to make sure that this option is what it appears Constitutionally and pragmatically, and to think through specifically and to tell my constituents how such action would help D.C. residents achieve the full representation in the Senate they deserve. This is a task I am about at this very moment. There is almost nothing I cannot do in the House, particularly given my voting right in committee. The District's fundamental empowerment is in the Senate. These bills are not ripe largely because there has not been an opportunity to explore the many questions they raise. Thus, Chairman Davis and I have agreed that the best way to advance D.C. voting rights this year was with today's hearing to offer an opportunity to begin to look at them all. Not surprisingly, I know of only a handful of people who are even generally familiar with these approaches, or the political realities that dictate whether they are achievable. The reason of course is that this is the first hearing to expose and explain them all, and we are very grateful for this important beginning. We believe this hearing is not only the appropriate way to begin. A hearing on four separate bills for congressional voting rights is in and of itself an important breakthrough in the struggle for full representation. In opening this new and important chapter, I am very grateful to Chairman Davis for his leadership, for his bill and for this hearing. To my colleagues and Representatives Regula and Rohrabacher for their bills and for their contributions to today's hearing, and to my good friends from the District who will be testifying today. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much. Any other opening statements? Mr. Van Hollen. Mr. Van Hollen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I will be brief. First, I want to thank you, Chairman Davis, for your sincere commitment and long efforts to try and resolve this very important issue. I want to just say that I fully support full voting rights for the people of the District of Columbia, and I want to especially thank Ms. Norton, who I know has committed all of her career to trying to resolve this very, very important question. I think this hearing is a very important step toward opening a renewed dialog and conversation on this issue. I support the proposal put forward by Ms. Norton. I think it's the most straightforward way for addressing this issue. I think it deals with the principle of full voting rights for the people of the District of Columbia, the most direct way providing voting rights in the House and the Senate. But I do want to commend all the others who have looked for solutions to this problem and this issue. I would note that the proposals put forward by Mr. Regula and Mr. Rohrabacher obviously have a direct impact on the State of Maryland. To my knowledge, they have not received any commitment or endorsement from their former colleague and now the Governor of Maryland, Governor Ehrlich. I would note that my good friend, the Mayor of the District of Columbia, and I'm not going to anticipate all of his testimony, but out of the four proposals, that is one proposal that I think, of the four, suggests is the least workable of the four. Maybe there's a way to resolve it, I don't know. But clearly, we need to ask the people of both Maryland and the District of Columbia which of these approaches they prefer as we move forward. But again, I want to thank everybody who is looking for a way to resolve this question in good faith for the efforts they've put forward. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much. Mr. Davis. Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I shall also be brief. Let me just first of all commend you for holding this hearing. I also want to commend you and Delegate Norton for the tremendous amount of time, energy and effort that you have put forward to try and deal with an unresolved issue of longstanding. I have been fully in favor of voting rights for the residents of the District of Columbia since I was a child. I can remember reading history in grammar school and wondering why people who lived in the District of Columbia did not have full voting rights. I think I would be in total support of the proposal that has been put forth by Delegate Norton, because what we're talking about is giving people their full right to empowerment. They didn't make a determination about how the area was carved up, where they lived. That was decided a long, long time ago. And I think that we need to come full circle now and extend to them the full benefit of being a citizen of this great Nation. So I thank you, Mr. Chairman and yield back the balance of my time. Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you. Ms. Watson. Ms. Watson. I too want to join my colleagues in commending the Chairman and Ms. Norton's efforts and the efforts of other Members who have been on this issue for decades. I know that when I was in the California State Senate, the issue came before us, and there wasn't a whole lot of support. I want to state my position very clearly and very directly. I support full representation. Any American living in any area of our country needs to have representation, voting representation in the House and the Senate according to their numbers. The compromises keep the focus on voting rights. But I do not think that the people who live and serve in the District of Columbia need to be retroceded back to Maryland. No, I think that's wrong. And I think we can find a Constitutional way to do it. So I support only Ms. Norton's bill, unless there is some way to agree that we would have amendments on it. But I really think in today's world, as we're trying to spread democracy around the globe, and impose it on other people who have a different way of looking at government, we can only be the model. And I think every American citizen should be represented proportionately in Congress. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much. If there are no other opening statements, we're going to go to our distinguished second panel. We have the Mayor of the District of Columbia and we have the Chairwoman of the City Council, Linda Cropp. Will you rise with me and raise your right hands? It's our policy to swear you in before you testify. [Witnesses sworn.] Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you. First of all, let me just say thank you both for the job you're doing. You've restored a lot of respect for the city, Mayor Williams, over your tenure. We appreciate the job you're doing, and we're here today in a historic hearing and eager to hear what you have to say, both of you. Thank you. STATEMENTS OF ANTHONY A. WILLIAMS, MAYOR, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA; AND LINDA W. CROPP, CHAIRWOMAN, COUNCIL OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Mayor Williams. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership in bringing us all together on this historic occasion. Certainly I want to thank our Congresswoman Norton for spearheading this throughout her time both here in Congress and throughout her entire career, let alone her citizenship of our city. Congresswoman Watson, thank you for being here and supporting this. You represent many of my family members out in L.A., and you're a great example of how out of loss can come something great. We all miss Congressman Dixon, but you're doing a great job as another friend of our city, and I thank you for that. And my long time friend, Chris Van Hollen, thank you for your steadfast support for our city. This is a unique opportunity, and Council Chair and I represent 570,000 disenfranchised citizens of the United States. As we've heard today, we're citizens in every sense of the word, we die for our country in war, we're active in civic life, and yes, we pay taxes. But this Nation denies us a full voice in this very body. And it's my firm conviction that our lack of representation should rise to the level of personal outrage for District citizens and all Americans who value equality and fairness. So it's with a sense of appreciation and pride that I sit before you today to discuss four distinct efforts to end this injustice. It's especially commendable that these bills have been introduced by both Democrats and Republicans, including three senior and influential members of the majority and the District's own non-voting Congresswoman. That they provide a wide spectrum of alternatives for moving toward representative democracy for our Nation's Capital is another indication that this issue is beginning to mature as a slight that demands a remedy. And I credit the Members of Congress who have authored them for their efforts to put this at the forefront of the push for human and democratic rights for District citizens. I would first like to commend Representative Regula and Representative Rohrabacher. Their bills offer opportunities for the District to achieve a full cohort of congressional representation. There are variations on the theme of retrocession, although they do have fundamental differences. One commonality of the bills is that the District's congressional representation would be calculated as if the District were part of the State of Maryland. This approach could bring full congressional representation to the District in an expedient fashion, but the approach requires much additional contemplation. Support among the people on both sides of the District line would need to be carefully gauged and assessed. Admittedly, some District citizens might support these proposals, since they provide one version of a solution to non-representation. However, I would be very reluctant to support any initiative that has a potential to fragment the District's political identity. The District is a unique political and social unit, and I've learned this both through my personal experience and from reading all the various histories of our city. It's a unique political and social unit that cannot be commingled with the interests of Maryland or any other State. I would imagine that Maryland residents and citizens would also be divided, very divided on this issue. As honorable as these intentions may be, it's my belief that these goals are not workable and do not provide as desirable a solution as an initiative that would keep the District intact. The bill introduced by you, Chairman Davis, would provide the District with one voting Member in the House of Representatives. Obviously this bill does not address the issue of Senate representation and does not provide a full solution to our disenfranchisement. Nevertheless, it does move the issue forward, and I look forward to working with the committee as it explores and attempts to resolve the outstanding Constitutional, legal, and yes, political issues connected to this approach. Congresswoman Norton's bill provides, I think, the most comprehensive solution to our disenfranchisement, insofar as it provides representation for the District in both the House and the Senate. Admittedly, this bill faces perhaps the steepest climb of the four proposals. But as I've read histories of our city and certainly the history of our country, the most ambitious options often require the most work. I'm grateful also to Senator Joe Lieberman who shepherded this bill through the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee several years ago. We are deeply appreciative of that. As I said before, each of these bills advance the cause of democracy in our city. We owe a debt of gratitude to the sponsors, as well as a commitment to continue working together. I encourage the Congress, as Mayor of this city, to hold other hearings and work toward bipartisan support wherever possible. This hearing is the beginning of what should be a spirited debate, both in this body and across the District, on what solution should be pursued. The bipartisan efforts here today are evidence that representation for the District can be a voting rights issue and not a partisan one. The United States should be a beacon around the world for the virtues and the inclusiveness of democracy. Our city represents that. I was particularly proud of being Mayor here today when we're having this bipartisan discussion of voting for the city. I was proud of our city and the way we conducted the funeral services for President Reagan. I got a lot of positive comments from people across the country. I was particularly proud a couple of weeks ago on Memorial Day weekend, when I talked to a World War II veteran, I think he was from Maine. He was talking about the night and day difference in the city over the last 25 years, and how he had gone into one of our neighborhoods, he was really impressed with the way the city was coming back. We started talking about the lack of representation in the city. He was shocked that here in Washington, DC, there was no representation for the citizens of this city. I think many Americans who value this city and have pride in this city would also be shocked at this denial of representation in, as you said, Mr. Chairman, the apex of democracy in the world. I applaud this committee for addressing this issue, and I look forward to working with you as Mayor of this city to advance this great cause. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Mayor Williams follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.015 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.016 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.017 Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you. Let me just also say, it's important to note that under your leadership and Chairwoman Cropp's and the Council, I know you all don't agree on everything, but you can see this city coming back. And you have created a political atmosphere up here where we can have an honest discussion about these issues, where the city's reputation is now enhanced up here because of the way things are going. We appreciate that and hope that these discussions over the next couple of years will be fruitful and we can be productive in bringing you some voting rights. Chairman Cropp, thanks for being with us. Ms. Cropp. Thank you very much, Chairman Davis and our Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton and Congresswoman Watson and Mr. Van Hollen. It's a pleasure to be here with each and every one of you. Let me thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this very important public hearing on the provisions of voting representation in Congress for American citizens who live in the District of Columbia. The good is that this hearing is being held today. The bad is that in 2004, over 570,000 citizens in the District of Columbia who pay $3 billion in Federal taxes are denied voting representation in Congress. The Council and the citizens of the District of Columbia very much appreciate this opportunity to urge you and your colleagues to use your power to bring to the Nation's Capital the same democracy the United States demands of foreign governments. If democracy is good for foreign countries, is it not also good for the District of Columbia and our citizens? There is nothing in the Constitution that precludes granting the citizens of the District of Columbia voting representation. Article I Section 8 of the Constitution only provides for Congress' authority over the District as a Federal territory. That clause does not deny the citizens of the Federal territory voting representation. Throughout the world, other capitals model themselves after the United States, except for one important matter. They recognize the flaw in the United States model, that of disenfranchisement of a large segment of their population. They know the importance of granting the citizens of their Federal enclaves voting representation. The right to representation for the citizens of the District of Columbia, it continues to be unconscionable to citizens that they are denied the basic rights held by every other citizen of the United States, that is the Constitutional right to be represented, to have a voice, to have a vote in the Congress of the United States. The denial of this basic right to citizens who pay the second highest per capita Federal income tax in this country, and who have lost more residents in wars protecting the Nation than 20 other States, is unjust and should be rectified by Congress. Article I Section 8 gives Congress exclusive jurisdiction over the District of Columbia. We believe that this same broad jurisdiction provides Congress with the Constitutional authority to enact a bill to provide congressional voting rights to the District's citizens. The Congress and the Constitution treat the District as a State for numerous purposes; for example, housing, transportation, education. Why not for the most precious and fundamental right in a free and democratic society, the right to voting representation? The Supreme Court, while sympathetic, has essentially stated that it is Congress that has authority to remedy this problem. The Council is committed to achieving full voting representation for its citizens. The Council urges Congress to pass H.R. 1285, No Taxation Without Representation Act of 2003, introduced by Congresswoman Norton, the District's non-voting delegate to Congress, and the Senate companion bill, S. 617, introduced by Senator Joe Lieberman, which will grant the District's citizens voting representation in the House and the Senate. On behalf of the Council and the citizens of the District of Columbia, I would like to thank these two Members of Congress for introducing legislation that would finally give District residents the right of representation that all other citizens of the United States have been granted. I have attached to my testimony the Council resolution adopted in 2002 supporting these two bills. The Council's objective is to achieve full voting representation for the citizens of the District. We recognize, however, that there may be several ways to achieve this objective. Full voting representation may be achieved in incremental steps, such as obtaining representation in one or two chambers first, then the other at a later time. We would prefer it all to come at once. The Council has recently adopted a resolution supporting such an interim step. I have attached to my testimony the Council's resolution adopted June 1, 2004, supporting the incremental approach to achieve full voting representation, R. 15-565. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the legislation that you have proposed that would grant full voting representation in the House, and your comments in support of the Council's resolution. Full voting rights representation in the House would provide an interim first step in allowing the citizens of the District of Columbia to have a voice in their Federal Government. Votes taken on the House floor ultimately impact the legislation in the Senate, and those will become law. The Council looks forward to working with you and toward the obtainment of representation in Congress. Again, let me be clear. While the Council is willing to consider an interim step, our objective remains to obtain full voting representation for the citizens of the District of Columbia. We believe that this is a right too long denied. The Council greatly appreciates the interest of other Members of the Congress who have introduced or proposed legislation that would provide some form of representation for our citizens. It's reassuring to know that congressional Members of both parties understand the importance of and the need to correct this longstanding injustice. Representative Regula, I want to thank him for his interest and efforts on this very important issue for the citizens. His proposal would cede the District back to the State of Maryland. While recognizing the origins of the land creating the District of Columbia, I believe that the reunification of the two jurisdictions would present many difficulties. The District has been separated from Maryland since the early 1800's. Since that time, institutions of government, business and residential citizenship have been developed. Also, cessation back into the State of Maryland would require redistricting that would ultimately change the political boundaries known today as the District of Columbia and the separate counties of Maryland. Representative Rohrabacher has introduced the District of Columbia Voting Rights Act. I want to thank Representative Rohrabacher for his understanding of this important issue and his efforts in drafting the legislation. Again, while supporting that and thanking him for introducing that, we think that there is another approach that would be better for the citizens of the District of Columbia, and certainly the proposal is extremely well intended. In order to determine the number of representatives from the State of Maryland whose proposal would incorporate the population of the District with the population of Maryland, the apportionment of representatives and creation of more congressional districts would initially be sort of hard pressed. However, I would like to thank him for his interest in that. We were joined earlier by young children who had come into the chamber, and they had tee-shirts on, the Young D.C. Suffragettes. Chairman Tom Davis. We start them early here in D.C. [Laughter.] Ms. Cropp. That's right, we start them early and often. We have to because of the injustice here. But as I look at them, I can only think that they represent thousands of other children in the District of Columbia. And quite frankly, I think they really represent, Mr. Chairman, children in Virginia, Ms. Watson's children in California, Mr. Van Hollen's children in Maryland, children who we are sending mixed messages to. What we are saying to these children is, do as I say, but not as I do. Because we say that we want democracy. We say that we are sending our citizens around the world to fight for democracy. We say to our children that the right to vote is important. We say to our children that this country was founded on the fundamental principle of no taxation without representation. We say to our children that democracy is important for every citizen in this country. But we do something different. We do to the District of Columbia and its citizens an injustice, only because you have the power to do it. This hearing, Mr. Chairman, is about changing that injustice. We plead to the rest of the congressional representatives to teach our children in this country a very valuable lesson, that we mean what we say and we do it. The power is in your hands. Thank you for this opportunity. [The prepared statement of Ms. Cropp follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.018 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.019 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.020 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.021 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.022 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.023 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.024 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.025 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.026 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.027 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.028 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.029 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.030 Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much, Chairman Cropp. We've been joined by Representative Cannon from Utah. Chris, thanks for joining us. Congratulations on your victory yesterday. Mr. Cannon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize, but I have a hearing where I am presenting a bill before the Corrections Committee in just a few minutes. Could I submit an opening statement for the record? Chairman Tom Davis. Without objection, that will be put in. [The prepared statement of Hon. Chris Cannon follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.031 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.032 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.033 Mr. Cannon. Thank you very much. I appreciate you holding this hearing and your leadership on the issue. It's a very significant issue for our committee and for the District of Columbia and also for Utah. We appreciate that, and I yield back. Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much. Let me start. Mayor Williams, Ms. Norton is obviously a very effective representative in this city, even without a vote. I can tell you that, being here with her on the committee and everything else. But you have no representation in the Senate, you have no vote on the House floor. And as you look around the country and deal with other mayors and other areas, the city is disadvantaged to that extent, wouldn't you say? Mayor Williams. It clearly is. Just one example is in the health care area. Medicaid is a big, big part of our budget. Health care is a big, big part of our budget. The District right now is really, I think, disadvantaged because the Medicaid formula is based on income as opposed to based on the incidence of property in your jurisdiction. We have the highest concentration of poverty in the United States, but we don't have a voice in the Congress in trying to reshape that formula and reshape that fundamental Federal approach to health policy. This is one example of many. Transportation would be another one. Chairman Tom Davis. And in the case of Medicaid, everybody's admitted they made a mistake in the formulas. Mayor Williams. Right. Chairman Tom Davis. And haven't been able to find it, and we've all stood on our heads. I appreciate it, I think that's important to note. Some who favor statehood for D.C., two Senators as well as a House Member, say they can't support a proposal that provides just the House, that they don't want half a loaf, that they believe it ought to be everything or nothing. And yet, as you look at the history of voting rights in the city, it has been incremental. It started with Presidential voting in 1960, it went to home rule, limited home rule, the first appointed council. How do you talk to those people and what do you say to those people? I'd just try to say it's been a gradual, incremental approach through time and we're heading in the right direction. But what do you hear in the city on these issues? Mayor Williams. I go by the saying, there's an old saying, to plan is human, to implement is divine. It's easy to have a broad, grand plan, and I share that plan. I believe that it is a fundamental injustice that we don't have full representation in the Congress. But we're still looking, in the civil rights era, we're still looking for full economic empowerment, we're still looking to vindicate civil rights for all Americans. In other words, a step by step approach to civil rights. We're still looking for full vindication of voting rights here in the Congress. It's going to take a step by step approach here. I support legislative autonomy, budget autonomy, a number of measures, voting for a Congresswoman, a number of measures that are not fully satisfactory or sufficient in themselves, but are necessary milestones in getting us to our full destination. So I reluctantly but at the same time aggressively support a step by step approach, if that gets us to our destination. Ms. Cropp. Mr. Chairman, if I could just add. Make no mistake, there is no doubt that we would like to have it all. Full voting representation in the Senate and the House, we want it all. The reality is, right now we probably won't get it all. Our people in the District of Columbia are starving. They are starving for democracy. We have an opportunity to get some vegetables and bread while we're starving, and we haven't had anything to eat in decades. But we have an opportunity to get vegetables and some bread. We want that for our citizens to keep them alive so that they can keep fighting to get the meat added to their dinner plate. That's the essence of it. We need to move forward so that we can stay alive to fight the continued battle for full democracy. Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much. I was going to say, my plan at least gives you a ``stake'' in the outcome, but I saw--[laughter]--you mentioned, could you lay out more specifically what concerns you have about the city going into Maryland and becoming--what problems does this present if the city were to ever become a part of Maryland and be a full functioning city? Because that's one of the proposals. Ms. Cropp. I think there are several problems on different front. The District of Columbia for so long has now developed its own identity. The State of Maryland also has its own identity. And that is the basic problem that would happen with that. In addition to that, I don't think Maryland would necessarily open its arms up to embrace the District, because it certainly would change their political landscape tremendously. So many people have talked about politics being a reality, and that's a very real issue for Maryland, that their political landscape would change. But beyond that, the District has its own identity and culture, and we believe that we should have our own representatives. Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much. Ms. Norton. Ms. Norton. I certainly want to thank both Mayor Williams and the Chair of our Council, Chairwoman Cropp, for what was really very thoughtful testimony. I appreciate your support of my bill and your support of the flexibility I have to have to operate in the House of Representatives. Very tempting, if you all know Eleanor Holmes Norton, I've been here for 14 years, to say, wow, I got a House vote. But of course, the people of the District of Columbia expect me to read between the lines, and that is what I've been doing and will continue to do. The flexibility I speak of is perhaps heralded by the way Chairman Davis himself has operated on his bill. I have worked with Chairman Davis every step of the way and I'm going to continue to do so. His initial bill, which I have to tell you, District residents in large numbers put their hands up and said, we're for commingled District residents with Maryland residents. But based on the fact that it was a House vote, District residents may just say, I'm for that, because that gets us there. That is not the way to operate in the House of Representatives. Both of you have testified for example that you would not like to see that kind of commingling. Now, the chairman was only operating from step one. He was still looking at his bill. I didn't jump up and say, oh, my goodness, we couldn't possibly support that. We are in no position to support anything. We need to work with one another just as I am continuing to work with the chairman. And just as by working with him, his initial bill was changed substantially. It wasn't changed substantially because of anything I did, although we ourselves did our own study. The chairman was continuing to work on the bill himself, and didn't put a bill in until just yesterday. And as with all legislation, he is of course still working on that bill. There's a lot of homework we're still doing. I want to assure everybody I'm doing homework on all these bills. For example, there's a lot of homework to be done in Utah. All we know about Utah is that Utah is for another vote. Wouldn't you be for one? So everybody, the Democrat and the Republican from Utah says yes, we're for another vote and we're certainly glad if you get us another vote. But the chairman has not had any opportunity to do any homework in Utah. He's been working on his bill. So nobody knows what the mechanics of Utah are, assuming that's what we're talking about. I raise these issues, not because I believe that this bill is not the way to proceed. On the contrary, everything I do up here is incremental. I have a bill that I am co-sponsor with the chairman for budget autonomy that we hope to get out this very year which is not full budget autonomy. But it very substantially moves us away from where we are today and toward full budget autonomy. So I want to be clear that I do not oppose incremental approaches. But I have to have the flexibility to do what I do up here every day, and that is to negotiate the best deal for the District of Columbia. And that is what I am going to do. I am going to work with each and every one of these Members, including Members who have bills that I perhaps could not support ever. I'm going to certainly continue to work with Chairman Davis, who has always been open to changes. And I know the way the House operates. If you continue to work with Members who agree with you on the basic principle, you can ultimately get a bill that will be acceptable to everybody. We can't do this by leaps and bounds, and we can't do it without knowing what is out there. And so I want everyone to understand my position, which is certainly not one of opposing approaches that edge up to voting rights. I do mean what I say about the Senate. Because it is very hard for me to think of anything I can't do in the House except cast a vote on the House floor. That is a total insult to my constituents, a total and complete insult to my constituents. Would that the votes were not already determined by the time you get to the House floor. For most Democrats, a vote on the House floor is a mere--well, we do not have a majority, for example. It doesn't determine anything. So one of the things that I am in the process of doing right now is not, it's working on what many residents want to hear, and that this is a way station. What in the hell is that? They want to make sure it's not a permanent station. They want to know, Eleanor Holmes Norton, Linda Cropp, Tony Williams, specifically tell us how you would make, you would use this opportunity to in fact achieve full voting rights. I believe that this is a question that can be answered, and I want to invite members of the D.C. City Council, our Mayor to work with me so that we can put this approach on the table, assuming we can work out the considerable political difficulties raised in Utah and even in this Congress, so that we can ask the questions that are already beginning to be asked, and answer the questions that are already beginning to be asked by residents. In the meantime, I continue to, I am going to continue to work with Chairman Davis specifically on his bill and to encourage him on his approach and to see if we can perfect that approach, along with the bill that I myself have introduced. I thank you both for your work, because your work in the city has been very important in opening the atmosphere here for Republicans and Democrats to want to consider congressional voting rights. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much. Ms. Watson. Ms. Watson. Again, I want to thank the Chair. This debate, discussion and these bills are long overdue. It is my strong feeling that the debate should have happened back when people got full citizenship by being born in this country. Disenfranchisement of any group cannot be justified, unless there has been a crime committed and they lose their rights. I don't feel that the people of the District of Columbia are full citizens because they are victimized by the location in which they choose to live. There is a fundamental issue here that should be debated. What are the rights of American citizens? I mean, that's the only thing. I don't think an area needs to be ceded back to another area to give you as an American citizen the right to vote. If so, you shouldn't have to pay taxes here. So I mean, we're discussing something very fundamental here. And to me, it's really simple and it's clear. I'm an ambassador, former Ambassador, and I had to go around and represent the United States in countries that didn't even understand our language or understand our Government. They certainly didn't understand what happened in November 2000. I had to tell them that no, that's not the way we operate. So how do you go out as someone representing the United States and say, a Democratic process guarantees you certain rights. But should you live in a certain location, you are disenfranchised. What kind of sense does that make, if it addresses the value and the principles of democracy? There is no justification. And I'm different from your representative, because I think that her way is the only way. I don't think there should be a compromise and I don't think it should be sequential. I don't think you need half a loaf. I thought we had debated that decades ago. But by birthright, you should not be penalized by the site upon which you chose to live. If you're in the continental United States, until your rights are taken away from you because you broke the law, you should have full rights. So my question to the panel, do you feel that there is a penalty placed on you because you chose to live in the cradle of democracy, our Capital? Ms. Cropp. There's no doubt that there is a very severe penalty placed on us. Ironically, someone who lives in one other State can just decide to move the very next day. And they lose what rights and privileges they had. You know, you're supposed to be able to move about this country and have certain basic rights as you move. Isn't it ironic that someone could move from California and in 1 day, 1 hour, 3 hour trip, 4 hour trip and all of a sudden they lose their rights and privileges of having voting representation in the Congress of the United States? There's something wrong with that. Mayor Williams. I think there clearly is a penalty by virtue of where our citizens choose to live. It puts the city and it certainly puts our leadership in a very untenable position, it's a difficult position. And from the very origins of our city, 200 or so years ago, there was a Mayor and a Council, they would all talk about voting rights for the city. And at that time the Congress would threaten to just pull the Federal Government out of town. They would tell them, instead of talking about voting rights, why don't you build roads, then it wasn't paving roads, it was like, take the trees off the roads, light the streets, take care of basic business, instead of sitting here complaining about voting rights. This is not a new issue. This has been going on for decades and decades and decades. And it's still not right. It still hasn't been fixed. Ms. Waters. If I may just finish, Mr. Chairman, I just want to say I watch every day your representative, Ms. Norton, involve herself in all issues of the committee's province. And we all rush to the floor to vote on budgetary items and so on, and has no voice for you. There is something fundamentally wrong with that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much. Mr. Van Hollen wants to make a statement before he leaves. Thanks for being here. Mr. Van Hollen. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mayor Williams, Chairman Cropp, for your testimony. And as I understand both of your testimony, out of the four proposals that are before us now, the two that involve Maryland, as I understand, in your opinion are probably the most complicated, the most difficult to enact and at least at this point in time, the least desirable, although obviously they involve a conversation with the people of the District of Columbia and Maryland. Is that my understanding of your positions? Ms. Cropp. That's correct. Mr. Van Hollen. OK. That leaves of course the proposal of Chairman Davis and of course the legislation of Congresswoman Norton. As I said, I strongly support the legislation put forward by Congresswoman Norton, but I also understand that when you're trying to achieve a goal, sometimes you have to take steps along the way. So I look forward to working with Congresswoman Norton and Chairman Davis, I think, as his proposal has also been put forth in good faith. I want to work with her and all of you and the people of the District of Columbia to see whether we can't move forward on this. I would very much like to see us get to the end game of a full voting rights, as expressed in Congresswoman Norton's proposal right away. But I look forward to working with her and all of you to see if there isn't some proposal that moves us in the direction just on the way to full voting rights. I don't know whether that's possible. But I just want to say to both the chairman and Ms. Norton, I look forward to working with you to try and accomplish that. Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much, Mr. Van Hollen. Mr. Shays. Ms. Shays. Thank you. First I want to say that when I was elected, shortly after a member named Tom Davis came to Congress, I wasn't quite sure whether he represented Washington, DC, or northern Virginia. [Laughter.] Because he took such a great interest in Washington, DC, I was very proud---- Chairman Tom Davis. That doesn't help me in northern Virginia, I just wanted to let you know that. [Laughter.] Mr. Shays. I was very proud that he did that, and I was very proud he did it as a Republican. And I'm very proud of him now for bringing this legislation forward. I would respond to Ms. Watson's comment, because I agree with part of it, but I don't agree with all of it. I think it is absolutely clear that representation in the House of Representatives needs to happen. And the best way it can happen, we should do it. I wrestle with the whole issue of Senatorial, whether a city-State of a half a million plus people should have two Senators. And we can get into an impassioned speech about that, but the absurdity is looking at a place like California. I know California has two representatives, but I don't think it's easy for someone to have access to those two Senators from California. A little easier if you come from a State like Delaware, or Connecticut. So we do have that distortion, and that's what it is. My own view, it seems so clear to me, Virginia basically took part of the 10 mile square and I think it's so logical that the erst of Washington should be part of Maryland. But that's not going to happen, for political reasons it's not going to happen. So I just want to applaud both of you for what I think your testimony is. You may agree ultimately that you need two Senators and a representative. But you have an extraordinary representative, Ms. Norton, who doesn't have the legal rights that I have. Just think what you could do when she has that capability, to be able to stand on the floor to vote on any issue. And to move the ball forward, to me, is absolutely essential. And I would hope that Republicans and Democrats alike would want to do that. Otherwise, I think we could be debating this 50 years from now. Because the political reality is, it didn't happen under a Democratic President, it didn't happen under a Republican President, it didn't happen under a Democratic Congress, it didn't happen under a Republican Congress. It's going to take both parties to get together and find a solution. And it's going to have to be a compromise. I'd like to know if I've said anything that you find particularly objectionable in what I've said, to either one of you. Mayor Williams. First of all, Congressman, thank you for your support for voting rights in the House and the general notion of representative democracy. I would just say, and I'm not expert, but it just seems that States were recognized in the Union and given Senate representation on the basis of fundamental principles of democracy, yes, with consideration of politics, yes, but also with due regard to their history and their culture and their tradition. And Washington, whether we like it or not, has now over 200 years developed a distinct culture and experience and history that should be recognized. It isn't just a matter of, with deep, deep respect, in my mind it isn't just a matter of politics. Ms. Cropp. I want to thank you for your support and your understanding of receiving congressional representation. I'd like to talk to you later on about Senate representation. And I understand the differences. But when you look at the District of Columbia and look at our population and you compare it with several other States, and we are a city-State at this point, but when you compare it with several other States who also have Senate representation, you look at our population, you look at our income, I think that we still, we too should have that type of Senate representation. When the country was developed, it wasn't the House for the population component of it, and my telling you about this is like telling Noah about a flood. You know it all much better than I. But the Senate was just to make sure that a State had, each State had some type of equal representation, regardless of size or population. So I would think that the District of Columbia would also fall under that. Mr. Shays. OK, but I would just say, and obviously Maryland has to be a willing player in this. But in the end, you solve the problem. There can be no argument that people in D.C. would not have a voice in the Senate if they get to choose a Senator in the State of Maryland. And that's a fact. That's a fact. They would get to vote. And so the argument that Ms. Watson makes to me is answered. Ms. Cropp. Yes, but I'm not talking about the District going to Maryland. I'm saying our own separate Senate. Mr. Shays. I understand that. I'm talking about it going to Maryland. But my point is, we do resolve the issue that Ms. Watson raises. You would be able to vote for both. But in the end, I guess I would just conclude, because my light is red here, seize this opportunity, seize it as a precious, precious opportunity. Don't let it get away. Ms. Cropp. It's our first step, and we extend our hands and join with Members of Congress to please make this a reality. Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much. I'm going to dismiss the panel, we have another panel to come in. I know you have other things to do. Thank you very much for being here. The committee will take a 2-minute recess as we move to the next panel. [Recess.] Chairman Tom Davis. We will hold the record open, I know we couldn't get every interested group who had comments before the committee today to testify, but we will take testimony for the record and submit into the record statements from other groups. I think we'll leave the record open for 10 days if they want to submit them to the committee and make them part of this. We now move to our third panel. It is a very distinguished panel indeed. We have Wade Henderson, esq., executive director of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights. We have the Honorable Kenneth W. Starr, who's a former solicitor general of the United States, former Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, a partner in Kirkland and Ellis, and soon to be dean of the Pepperdine University School of Law. Congratulations, Judge Starr. We have Ilir Zherka, the executive director of D.C. Vote. We have Walter Smith, the executive director of the D.C. Appleseed Center for Law and Justice. We have Betsy W. Werronen, who is the chairwoman of the D.C. Republican Committee, and Ted Trabue, who's here on behalf of the Greater Washington Board of Trade. Since we're the major investigatory committee in Congress, we swear everybody in. So if you'd rise with me and raise your right hands. [Witnesses sworn.] Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you. We're going to start, Mr. Henderson, with you, and we'll move on down the line. We have a button in front of you, it will turn, it will be green for 4 minutes, it will be orange for 1 and then red. Your entire statements are without objection put into the record, so the entire statement is in the record. To the extent you can stay within that 5 minutes, it helps us in bringing the issues and we can move to questions. You are a very important part of this, we appreciate your being here. We had opportunities to hear from literally dozens of groups and selected you to appear here before us today to answer questions. So we will start with you and move straight on down. Thank you all very much. STATEMENTS OF WADE HENDERSON, ESQ., EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE ON CIVIL RIGHTS; KENNETH W. STARR, FORMER SOLICITOR GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES; FORMER JUDGE, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT; ILIR ZHERKA, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, D.C. VOTE; WALTER SMITH, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, D.C. APPLESEED CENTER FOR LAW AND JUSTICE, INC.; BETSY W. WERRONEN, CHAIRWOMAN, THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA REPUBLICAN COMMITTEE; AND TED TRABUE, REGIONAL VICE PRESIDENT FOR DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AFFAIRS, PEPCO; GREATER WASHINGTON BOARD OF TRADE Mr. Henderson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you to the members of the committee for the opportunity to testify on voting representation in Congress for the citizens of the District of Columbia. My name is Wade Henderson, and I am the executive director of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights. The Leadership Conference is the Nation's oldest, largest and most diverse coalition of civil and human rights organizations. We strongly support efforts to give citizens of the District of Columbia full voting representation in the U.S. Congress. And indeed, voting rights for D.C. citizens is one of the compelling human and civil rights issues of our time. Now, at the outset of this hearing, I want to commend you, Mr. Chairman, for your leadership on this important issue, which has earned you well deserved respect on both sides of the political aisle and all sides of the District line. I also want to thank Delegate Norton for her longstanding and tireless effort to promote equal rights for the residents of the District of Columbia. The fact that there are now four house bills on the subject is a significant and important development toward closing a gaping hole in the fabric of American democracy. That the bills have been introduced by Republicans and Democrats is a hopeful sign of the return of bipartisanship that has characterized the passage of every major civil rights law, including the 1978 amendment that would have given the District full representation in both houses if it had been ratified by the States. This hearing and the debate about these bills could not be more timely. Citizen soldiers from every State and the District of Columbia are fighting and dying in Afghanistan and Iraq. All of them except for soldiers of the District of Columbia were represented when Congress decided their fate in 2002, and when Congress decided how much to spend on training, weapons, safety equipment and medical systems, on which their lives would later depend, deciding in effect how much their lives were worth in political terms. We are only days away from transferring sovereignty to an interim Iraqi government, which will be responsible for holding free elections by early next year. If and when those elections come, and Iraqis are given a chance to elect their own leaders, they will enjoy a right denied to hundreds of thousands of U.S. citizens. The leadership conference strongly believes that remedying the lack of voting rights for the District is the responsibility of Congress and within Congress' legislative power under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. The Federal Appellate Court's decision in Alexander v. Daley, upheld by the Supreme Court in 2001, agreed that it was unjust to deny District residents congressional representation, and made clear that the legislation by Congress was the appropriate remedy. It is deeply gratifying that we are here today to discuss how to provide voting rights to the District, rather than whether to provide them. Now, initially, I want to turn to H.R. 1285, Delegate Norton's No Taxation Without Representation Act of 2003. The leadership conference has consistently supported this bill and its predecessors as introduced in the House by Delegate Norton and in the Senate by Senator Joe Lieberman. Of the bills discussed today, the Norton bill is the simplest, fastest and most direct route to providing full voting representation in Congress for residents of the District of Columbia. We believe that it avoids many of the Constitutional problems that we will discuss subsequently, so I want to reiterate endorsement of H.R. 1285. Now, turning to the specific legislation that is before us today as well, let me first address your bill, Mr. Chairman, the District of Columbia Fairness in Representation Act [D.C. FAIR Act]. Without question, the legislation would effect a positive change for the residents of the District by giving them some congressional representation. As such, it would be an improvement over the status quo. And we commend the chairman for introducing it. D.C. FAIR's approach to creating voting rights for District residents is particularly creative. By simultaneously creating a second, temporary congressional district, widely expected to go to Utah, the legislation would likely have no immediate effect on the congressional balance of power between Republican and Democratic parties. One would hope that this would disarm those who shamelessly oppose voting rights for District citizens for purely partisan political reasons. Now, while we appreciate that the bill is intended to further the cause of voting rights by providing the District with a voting Member of the House of Representatives, we must be clear that it would not provide and equal rights for the residents of the District, because it doesn't include Senate representation. We understand the chairman's intent that the bill serve as a politically practical first step toward voting rights for the District, however, we fear that others might use such a compromise to short circuit efforts to provide full voting representation. Congressman Rohrabacher's District of Columbia Voting Rights Restoration Act would give District residents the right to vote in Federal elections as citizens of Maryland. It is another creative approach to the problem, and worthy of serious consideration. Of particular importance, the bill's finding of fact, laying out a case for congressional authority to provide voting representation for District residents, is an important addition for any statute on this subject. And we also encourage that the bill would give District residents representation in both Houses. Now, perhaps intended as a political tradeoff, the bill would go beyond congressional elections and treat District residents as citizens of Maryland for the purpose of Presidential elections. While we agree that Congress has full legislative authority to grant congressional representation to the District, we do not agree that it has the power to terminate the District's electoral votes. The plain language of the 23rd amendment grants electoral college participation to the District and specifically empowers Congress to enforce that grant, not terminate it. Representative Regula's bill, the District of Columbia-Maryland Reunion Act, is perhaps the most drastic of the four proposals, but also the only one with a clear statutory precedent. As the committee is aware, the area west of the Potomac ceded to the Federal Government by Commonwealth of Virginia was returned to Virginia in 1846. The leadership conference agrees with the premise of H.R. 381, that defining a national capital service area that would be retained by the Federal Government as the District of Columbia, all Constitutional requirements for the District would be satisfied, leaving Congress free to return the remainder of Washington to the State of Maryland. Unfortunately, there is no indication at this time that the State of Maryland or its citizens would accept the return of the District, not that I would propose it, as a District resident. But without question, the political and economic consequences of retrocession would be dramatic and far-reaching for the city of Washington, the State of Maryland and all the residents of both. We submit that H.R. 381 is premature. Before it is given serious consideration in Congress, funds should be appropriated for an in-depth study of the economic and political consequences of retrocession, including a survey of the residents of both Maryland and the District, to determine whether there is any support for retrocession in the city or the State. We are also concerned about the unintended consequences of all three bills. Implementation of new congressional districts would require redrawing of congressional boundaries in Utah and/or Maryland. Now, we have already seen the political and legal chaos created by partisan-inspired, mid-decade redistricting schemes in Texas and Colorado. We believe that the Texas plan is both unConstitutional and anti-democratic, and I'm deeply troubled by its potential effect on the voting rights of racial and ethnic minorities. While clearly not intended to do so, a Federal statute requiring redistricting, even to add a temporary House seat, would set a dangerous precedent that would surely be used as political and legal fodder in future mid-decade redistricting. While it would not be our first choice, if in Congress' judgment there is no other way to pass a bill creating voting representation for the District, we would recommend including protections against politically motivated redistricting sought by either political party. Congress could accomplish this goal by specifically defining the new congressional district boundaries and legislation creating the District, and by prohibiting any mid-decade redistricting of congressional seats, other than the initial post-census redistricting, unless specifically authorized by Federal statute. Absent this protection, we see no real way of going forward in a significant way. I see my time has expired. I apologize for going over. We think this is an important step. We commend you again for taking the initiative to address these issues. Thank you for introducing your bill, and I think we've made clearly the positions of the leadership conference on all four. [The prepared statement of Mr. Henderson follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.034 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.035 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.036 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.037 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.038 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.039 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.040 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.041 Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much. Judge Starr, thank you for being with us. Judge Starr. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My comments go exclusively to the issue of the Constitutional authority of the Congress to effect one or more changes. I will not discuss, as I know others are, the policy, much less the political implications. In my judgment, Congress does enjoy authority to create a seat in the House of Representatives, fully voting seat. And the source of authority I find in Article I, Section 8, the great powers clause or provision of the Constitution, which then enumerates a number of specific rights, particularly of relevance here, Clause 17, which is worded quite broadly and quite majestically. I note that it precedes the grand necessary and proper clause, which has been authoritatively interpreted by Chief Justice John Marshall early in the history of the Republic to grant enormous powers to the Congress of the United States. The language is quite simple, yet very broad, to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over the District of Columbia. This is plenary power. But as Congress' powers over the District are not limited to simply the powers that a State legislature might possess over a State. But as emphasized by Federal courts on numerous occasions, including the Supreme Court, the Seat of Government clause is majestic. In the words of the Supreme Court, ``The object of the grant of exclusive legislation over the District was, therefore, national in the highest sense. . . . In the same article which granted the powers of exclusive legislation . . . are conferred all the other great powers which make the Nation.'' My structural point. The location of the Seat of Government clause in a section of the Constitution that confers broad powers on the Congress. The language I quoted was from 1933, The O'Donoghue v. the United States. Now, the Constitution does not speak to voting rights, and it certainly does not speak to the voting rights of those in the seat of government. And in light of that, some textualists and indeed, some courts, have insisted that Article I effectively disenfranchises the District's residents in congressional elections, barring an amendment to the Constitution. In my view, that's quite wrong. Legislation to enfranchise the District's residents presents an entirely and altogether different set of issues from those that courts have addressed in calling into question the scope of congressional power. And while it's true that the Constitution does not affirmatively grant the right to vote in congressional elections, to District elections, it does grant Congress plenary power to govern the District's affairs. Thus, when we look at the entire cascade of cases over our two centuries, the Judiciary has rightly shown considerable deference where Congress announces its considered judgment that the District should be considered as a State for specific legislative purposes. I cite too, Congress we now know may exercise its power to regulate commerce across the District's borders, even though the Commerce Clause of Article I refers only to commerce among the several States. Congress may also, as we now know, bind the District with a duly ratified treaty which allowed citizens of France to inherit property in the States of the Union, a decision by the Supreme Court in 1890. An issue arose with respect to diversity jurisdiction, lawsuits between citizens of different States. And in 1949, the Supreme Court's decision in the Tidewater case upheld Congress' determination that diversity jurisdiction should extend to citizens of the District of Columbia as an appropriate exercise of power under the Seat of Government Clause. That holding confirms, I believe, what the law has long been understood to say. Moreover, and I set this out in my written testimony in brief form, I believe fundamental principles of representative democracy likewise support the extension of the franchise in this respect, and I cite various cases including Powell v. McCormack and the U.S. Term Limits case. In my judgment, Congress enjoys Constitutional authority. [The prepared statement of Judge Starr follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.042 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.043 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.044 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.045 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.046 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.047 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.048 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.049 Chairman Tom Davis. Judge Starr, thank you very much. Mr. Zherka. Mr. Zherka. Mr. Chairman, Congresswoman Norton, members of the committee, thank you very much for inviting me to testify at this historic hearing on how we fulfill the promise of American democracy for people living in the Capital of the free world. Senator Robert Dole once said the District of Columbia is not just a plot of land full of big white buildings and people who have come here temporarily to work for the Federal Government. Rather, it is a home to almost three-quarters of a million people who should be granted congressional representation, just as the citizens of our States are. Senator Dole and others on this committee and throughout our history supported full voting representation in Congress for District residents, because they understood that real people live here who deserve to be treated like real Americans, people like Iliana Canefield, who is in the third grade, is a member of the Young Suffragists, and dreams of representing D.C. in the U.S. Senate. People like James Davis, a native Washingtonian and recent high school graduate, who does not understand why D.C. should only get a voting Member of the House. People like Bruce Spiva, a partner at a law firm that handles civil rights cases. As he fights for the rights of others, he himself is denied the most fundamental civil right of a democracy, the right to choose those who make our laws. People like Frank Rich, who has lived his entire life in this great city, served this Nation in World War II and Korea, to defend democracy, but still does not enjoy the fruits of democracy here at home. These people are just like the people in your districts. They play by the rules, pay their taxes, serve our Nation in times of war, and love this country. And yet we treat them like second class citizens, and that is shameful. This hearing offers hope, however, that things will change. For this hearing is not about whether D.C. should have voting representation, but how to achieve that result. D.C. Vote strongly supports the No Taxation Without Representation bill, because that bill leaves D.C. intact, treats D.C. like a State for purposes of representation, and provides equal representation in the House and Senate without amending the Constitution. Congress already treats Washington, DC, as we just heard, like a State for purposes of Federal law and regulations. We think that's the right approach. But we also believe that for a bill to be enacted, it must have bipartisan support. Unfortunately, none of the bills we are considering today and talking about has such support thus far. As the Congress considers how to provide, on a bipartisan basis voting representation for D.C., we would like to offer two principles. First, be creative. Other countries with Federal cities have solved this problem in different ways. In Australia, for example, the two Senators representing the capital, Canberra, serve 3 year terms rather than the 6-year term that Senators from the States serve. Chairman Davis' idea of adding two seats to the House is certainly a creative approach and should be seriously considered by all sides. We believe that voting representation in the U.S. House of Representatives is important. We support efforts to achieve that result and encourage others to do the same. That said, we believe that Congress should follow a second principle: pass a bill that provides representation in both chambers. This is a bicameral legislature, and D.C.'s biggest disadvantage, as the Congresswoman said earlier, now is that it has absolutely no representation, voting or otherwise, in the Senate. That much change, and this Congress has the power to change it now. Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, as the U.S. fights wars and spends billions of dollars securing the rights of voting representation for people living in Baghdad, Kabul and elsewhere, let us also put an end to the shameful denial of voting representation for D.C. residents. I commend you for holding this hearing and for your devotion to ending this injustice. I look forward to working with you and the Congress in the future, and to your questions today. Thank you very much. [The prepared statement of Mr. Zherka follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.050 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.051 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.052 Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much. Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Walter Smith. I have a terrible, terrible cold, so I'll be as brief as you probably want me to be. Let me say at the beginning, I was one of the lawyers who brought the lawsuit now almost 6 years ago, July 4, 1998, asking a three judge Federal court to declare then that it was unConstitutional that citizens in the District do not now have full voting representation, and it was only by a two to one vote we didn't get that remedied immediately and on the spot. But what a lot of people don't realize is that although we lost that case only by a two to one vote, far from saying that District citizens should not have full voting representation, what that court actually said was that it is unfair and inequitable and a serious grievance that we do not have that voting right today, and it passed the issue to the Congress. It is to your great credit, Chairman Davis, and to yours, Ms. Norton, that you are now addressing that in the way the court invited you to do. Let me make five quick points, please, about the issues that are before you right now. The first is that in our view, there is no principled basis whatever, none, to continue to deny voting representation to citizens of the District. I don't want to repeat any point anyone's made before, but let me make one that no one has pointed out. We see ourselves as the greatest democracy on Earth. We are the only democracy on Earth that has a capital that denies democratic rights to the citizens of that capital. It is an international disgrace that is so. And again, I am pleased to be part of an effort to begin to remedy that situation. My second point is that we fully support full voting representation for the citizens of the District. And for that reason, D.C. Appleseed has long supported Ms. Norton's bill. My last three points are all legal points, and Congressman Davis, you asked in the request that I look at these. As you know, they are addressed in my testimony and in the memos that I attached to it. But let me make three quick points. First of all, we have written a number of memos, one several years ago, some coming from the distinguished law form of Latham and Watkins, pointing out what I hear Mr. Starr joining us in saying today, what Judge Starr has said, and I'm very pleased to hear his analysis of the issue. The Congress, under the District Clause, has the power to grant voting representation to citizens of the District. And I urge you to exercise that power soon. We also think, and this is a separate point, that if in fact you proceed on what people have been calling an interim basis, and we like others support full voting representation, but if you proceed on an interim basis, we do think included within the broad power under the District Clause you have the authority to proceed by interim steps, whether it is granting voting representation in one House or the other House or voting representation in one House and then non-voting delegates in the other. That's included within the board power that you have to grant full voting representation. My last two points have to do with the bills that talk about effectively granting us representation through Maryland. And as you know from the memos we have attached, we have serious Constitutional concerns with those proposals, even though we applaud the fact that those bills are here and represent an effort by other Members of Congress to find a bipartisan approach to at long last bring us what we're entitled to. And let just quickly say two of the reasons we're concerned about the Maryland approach. First, and the most important one, and Ms. Norton referred to this, under the Constitution, Article I, Section 2, only an inhabitant of any given State can represent that State in the Congress of the United States. So that if you deemed to treat us only as citizens of Maryland for purposes of voting, then no one who lives in Washington, DC, can ever represent Washington, DC, in the Congress. And that's one of the good things that came out of the court case that I participated in, because the court itself said that is so, and said we'd be the only people in the country who have voting representation without any chance of being people who can actually represent ourselves. You should not choose that route. The other reason you shouldn't choose that route is because we do not think that Congress has the authority as explained in the memo to deem citizens of one jurisdiction to be citizens of another jurisdiction for voting purposes. That is not within the power of the Congress. We urge you to move forward as the remarks of all the people here have indicated you should do. And again, we commend Chairman Davis for taking the lead in this effort. [The prepared statement of Mr. Smith follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.053 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.054 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.055 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.056 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.057 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.058 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.059 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.060 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.061 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.062 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.063 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.064 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.065 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.066 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.067 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.068 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.069 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.070 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.071 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.072 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.073 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.074 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.075 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.076 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.077 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.078 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.079 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.080 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.081 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.082 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.083 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.084 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.085 Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you. Ms. Werronen, thank you for being with us. Ms. Werronen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm Betsy Werronen, the chairwoman of the D.C. Republican Party. Before I begin my testimony, I would just like to make a brief aside. Our new headquarters here in the District is called the Edward W. Brooke Leadership Center. And I think that it is very fitting that today, when we all participate in this hearing, that Senator Brooke is going to the White House to be presented the Medal of Freedom by President Bush. I'd like to say, Senator Brooke is a proud product of D.C. public schools, of Howard University, but he had to go to Massachusetts to be elected to the Senate. Now, on behalf of the members of the D.C. Republican Committee, I speak in full support of voting rights for the people of the District of Columbia in the Congress of the United States. Our Republican Party has a proud heritage in support of voting rights for all Americans. We are proudly the party of Lincoln, and from Frederick Douglass, the former slave, abolitionist and suffrage advocate to Everett Dirksen, who sent the first Home Rule bill to be reported to the House in over 75 years, Republicans have continued to champion the right of all to express their most fundamental democratic right, their vote. The 1948 Republican platform at the insistence of our President's grandfather, Senator Prescott Bush, contained a plank calling for self-government and national suffrage for the Nation's Capital. And Republican party platforms from 1960 through 1976 supported Home Rule and D.C. voting representation. I want to assure you that the D.C. delegation to the Republican National Convention in August will carry the fight for such a plank in this year's Republican platform. I'd like to submit for the record Nelson Rimensnyder, a congressional historian, who has done extensive work in this area, a paper of his, Republicans and D.C. Voting Rights. Chairman Tom Davis. Without objection, that will be put into the record. [The information referred to follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.086 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.087 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.088 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.089 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.090 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.091 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.092 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.093 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.094 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.095 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.096 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.097 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.098 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.099 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.100 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.101 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.102 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.103 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.104 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.105 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.106 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.107 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.108 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.109 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.110 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.111 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.112 Ms. Werronen. Thank you. I thought it was important to convey for the record the role of the Republican Party in securing basic rights to the residents of the District. But the right for American citizens to vote should not be a Republican or a Democrat issue. I think the bipartisan spirit that has been exemplified here today shows that on issues of importance to the residents of the District, we can and will work together. Having our Mayor, our Council and the local Republican party united demonstrates how important this issue is to the people of the District, regardless of party. Let me make several important points. I want to talk on principle first, and not really get into the specifics of the details of achieving this. The residents of the District of Columbia are citizens of the United States. We are entitled under the Constitution to the same rights and responsibilities as all other citizens. District residents have uncomplainingly accepted our responsibilities, including the obligation to serve in the defense of our country and the obligation to pay taxes, just like all other citizens. It is the right thing to do. And today, there is simply no justification for not granting this basic right. Second, we recognize that there are several options for granting District residents voting representation that they are entitled to. But because the District of Columbia is a unique entity, set up by our founding fathers as a Federal city, Congress can show creativity and practicality in implementing voting representation. And as an important first step, we support fully the option of voting rights for a representative of the District in the House of Representatives. We believe this is the most achievable way to grant our citizens their rights and honor the principles and spirit of the Constitution. We urge you, Mr. Chairman, and this committee, to aggressively pursue the goal of full voting rights for a representative of the District to the U.S. House. We pledge to do all that we can to help the Congress achieve it. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Ms. Werronen follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.113 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.114 Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much. Mr. Trabue, thank you. Last but not least. Mr. Trabue. Good afternoon, Chairman Davis, Congresswoman Norton and members of the committee. Thank you for having me this afternoon. For the record, my name is Ted Trabue, and I'm the regional vice president for District of Columbia affairs at PEPCO, which is our local electric provider. But I'm here today to speak on behalf of the Greater Washington Board of Trade. I find it kind of odd today to be in on this panel, because I think I am the only native Washingtonian who has come before this committee today to speak. I'm a fourth generation Washingtonian, and I am really happy to be a Washingtonian here--there's another one? Great. Glad to hear that there's one other--to support particularly the Norton bill and the Davis proposal. I'd like to go back a little bit, because we talked about some of the history of the District, and I know there are a lot of interns here in the room. My first internship was with the old House District Committee, under the chairmanship of the Honorable Charlie Diggs. I remember some of the discussions that were going on over 25 years ago in that committee. It saddens me that we are here over a quarter of a century later, debating some of those very same issues. I just hope that by the time that these young fellow native Washingtonians grow up that we still won't be in the midst of this debate. I am heartened today, though, that this is not about the merits, it's about the methodology. I think that everybody who has testified here today, and clearly as demonstrated by your leadership on this issue, you get it. You understand. You very, very clearly understand it. We need to move forward. The Board of Trade is frustrated with the ongoing disenfranchisement of the District of Columbia. As the seat of our Nation's Government, our city has stood for over 200 years as one of the world's grandest and most enduring icons of democratic aspiration. Over time, the laws passed here have validated and strengthened the notion of equal protection and have guided our Nation's defense of human rights at home and abroad, and have served as a blueprint for other nations pursuing representative government. As was noted earlier, like Canberra in Australia, Mexico City, Brazilia, Ottawa up in Canada, were all modeled after our Nation's Capital. But what is unique to our circumstances is that we are clearly denied the fundamental rights of American citizenship. Let me speak to two of the bills that are not the table today, H.R. 381, which talks about reunion with Maryland, and H.R. 3709, which talks about allowing District residents to vote in Maryland elections. While both bills have some historical and possibly legal precedent, the Board of Trade finds both of them to be politically impractical. In essence, we would not like the Congress to talk about turning the clock back 200 years in an effort to move forward. We think that the plans that have been presented by Congresswoman Norton and Congressman Davis are very, very good plans on moving forward and putting the Nation's Capital on fair ground with the rest of the 50 States in the United States. Chairman Davis and Ms. Norton, I am conscious of the time and your need to wrap up this hearing, so I will conclude my statement. [The prepared statement of Mr. Trabue follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.115 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.116 Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much. Judge Starr, let me start with you. I found your testimony very powerful. What you're saying, though, is that this is a legislative remedy, not a judicial remedy. Because there have been a number of suits under the clause that you discussed. Judge Starr. That's correct. It is Congress that enjoys the power under Article I, again, the power is one of the specific enumerated powers that has then been judicially interpreted to be very broad, or as the Supreme Court has said, majestic in its scope, or plenary. It's Congress and not the judiciary that enjoys the power. Chairman Tom Davis. The fact that at the time the Constitution was written, the District of Columbia was a part of two different States at that point, it was created in 1790, the Constitution was written, of course, and ratified prior to that. And then from 1790 to 1800, people who lived in the District were voting in Maryland and Virginia for Congress for the House, because Senators were appointed at that point. Does that add anything, or do you think the plenary power just by itself is enough? Judge Starr. I think the plenary power by itself is enough, but I do believe that a court would be intrigued by that historical context; that is, that there was at the founding of the Republic enfranchisement, there was the ability to elect State legislators, for example, in addition to a Member of the House of Representatives. And the State legislators, of course, then elected the Senate. So there was full enfranchisement at that time, in terms of, obviously there were other issues in terms of disqualifications on very tragic grounds. But those who were permitted to vote on the basis of residency were able to vote fully and completely. What I think a court would take into account, or it's certainly logical for a court to take into account, is that as a matter of history, the ratifiers of the Constitution, as well as the drafters, simply were not contemplating this particular specific issue. But I think covered it by virtue, again, of the breadth of Clause 17. Chairman Tom Davis. There's just no question that the founders never envisioned this to be a city of over a half a million people and that voting rights would be extended to other groups. It's a completely different world at this point. Judge Starr. Completely different world. And that's why, for example, in other areas, the Constitution is interpreted by the Supreme Court in ways in which the framers might have found odd, such as in freedom of speech. It is now widely agreed that freedom of speech includes symbolic speech. Yet as great a Justice as Hugo Black would say, no, it doesn't go that far. Now, what's happened is we have a fuller and richer understanding of the meaning of ``freedom of speech.'' And I think so too when we look even at structural arrangements in the Constitution, we have a fuller and deeper understanding, as guided here very helpfully by Supreme Court decisions that have already addressed the issue of, can the District for purposes of specific provisions in the Constitution be a State. And the Supreme Court has said, yes, it can. Chairman Tom Davis. Previous Congresses have concluded that a Constitutional amendment was required to provide voting representation in the District. This was kind of the assumption. But the Congress is not bound by the conclusions of previous Congresses, are they? Judge Starr. I would certainly hope not, and it certainly has never been the law that the Congress of the United States, elected by the people and who in turn take an oath to uphold the Constitution are somehow bound by a possibly, if not completely erroneous view of what the Constitution means. So there should be no freeze-in or lock-in effect at all, in my judgment. Chairman Tom Davis. Mr. Trabue, I'm curious to know if the Board of Trade sees representation as a business issue. Mr. Trabue. We do see it as a business issue. Very clearly, as you might recall, a number of years ago when we were working on the Woodrow Wilson Bridge project, that was clearly an issue where you had the three jurisdictions, Maryland, Virginia and the District of Columbia, having to come together, because all three of those jurisdictions were going to have to deal with the funding on that bridge, and therefore then have to go to Transportation Committee to get authorization for that funding. There's a very clear example where we would have been strengthened in our numbers if Congresswoman Norton or if the District had had a vote at the table. Clearly, business, transportation is a huge issue for us, and it's clearly a business issue. Chairman Tom Davis. I'm going to recognize Ms. Norton, she's got a bill on the floor, she's got to go. She can speak on the floor, as you know, she can put amendments on, she just can't vote on her bill. But she's going to go talk. Ms. Norton. Ms. Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I have a bill that's coming up that I expect to be passed, recognizing the 40th anniversary of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which I chaired, and thus I would like to speak to this bill. I'm going to quickly ask some questions right down the line, if I can quickly go down the line. Mr. Henderson first, very thoughtful testimony and probing some of the legal issues as well. I noticed that you said at page 5 that Congress could, might as a way to avoid political unfairness actually itself define the new congressional district boundaries in the legislation. Of course, this is redistricting. I wonder if you'd had an opportunity, or if anyone at the Leadership Council has had an opportunity to look closely at that as a Constitutional matter. Redistricting must be done with a State. Congress has power to say how many districts. Within a State, how that is redistricted as a Constitutional matter is jealously guarded by the States. One wonders if one could--I mean, I'd be very interested in that, since that obviously is one of the issues I have raised. One wonders if you have yet given that to a bunch of Constitutional lawyers to look at, or whether you would agree to do so. Mr. Henderson. We certainly have agreed to do so, and we will be seeking additional advice on the interpretation of what Congress' authority would permit under these circumstances. But I think you correctly note that we observe the complications caused by a redistricting solution appended to any bill seeking to provide full voting representation, or even partial voting representation for District citizens. Our concern of course is that redistricting tends to be, in most jurisdictions, a political question. Obviously Congress sought to avoid those issues with respect to some of the particular and unique problems associated with minority voters. And the Voting Rights Act anniversary is, I think, one of the seminal events of civil rights that we note. That anniversary comes up next year, the Civil Rights Act anniversary is of course occurring now. It's only fitting that these issues are subject to discussion. But I think the Constitutional questions raised by the redistricting aspect of other bills that are under consideration indeed require further explanation, which is one of the cautions that we've cited. Ms. Norton. I appreciate that caution in your own testimony. Nothing is guarded more zealously within States than their right to redistrict. The reason I would like that explored is I wonder if Congress would ever allow a precedent whereby Congress said that, what the redistricting would be in a given State, or whether we could ever get that through. I raise this, because there have been all these assumptions about pragmatic. We ought to decide what we can get through here, and a whole bunch of people could line up and say, or, could they. And that's my question. Could they then line up and say, you're creating a precedent for Congress redistricting, and that is a no-no, at least it has been for most of our history. It would be very important, because I think that would help clear away one of the issues that has been raised. Mr. Starr, I very much appreciate your testimony. As you are perhaps aware, your testimony helps the chairman's bill, it helps my bill as well, because you talk about the plenary power of Congress. That is something that we have thought does exist. I wonder if proceeding on the way Congress has decided that the District should be considered a State, for virtually every purpose, is it your view that Congress could have denied, if it would like, considering the District for some purposes, or could consider the District a State for some purposes and not other purposes? Is this entirely a plenary power of the Congress of the United States, with no controls whatsoever from the Constitution itself? Or is the Congress simply interpreting what it thinks the Constitution meant when it set up a District of Columbia, that it meant for the District of Columbia to be treated as a State for these purposes, and it's simply pronouncing that, and the judiciary is following what the Congress has in fact pronounced flowing from the Constitution itself? Judge Starr. I would say, Congresswoman Norton, that the Congress is exercising its own judgment, reflecting upon the State of the law as well as the development and evolution of the District of Columbia, and is responding to that in a way that, in its virtually unfettered judgment, it is entitled to under the provision of the Constitution that I think empowers it to make these judgments. But it's a judgment call, as opposed to a mandate of the Constitution as I see it, to treat the District in a particular manner. In other words, the power is vested in Congress to come to a judgment at the national legislature as how to treat the District, as most of the Constitution, driving it in one particular direction. But a huge caveat, and that is, I do not believe that plenary power is so unfettered that the Congress could violate other provisions of the Constitution. Ms. Norton. Such as statehood, for example. I'm trying to find the limits of this power. If in fact they can go down the line and they have virtually gone down the line and defined us as a State for every purpose except voting rights, you're saying, so go to the next step and define the District as a State for voting rights. Is that what you're saying? Judge Starr. I think that's right, that Congress can in fact move and say, we're going to define voting rights the District as a matter of power, as a State, entitled to the full prerogatives of the State. Now, I do not, I think an argument that will be mounted the other way, if I may, and that is the 23rd amendment, of course, ratified in 1961, which is used as an argument to the effect that Congress does not enjoy the power, because of the sense that there needed to be, and Mr. Henderson spoke to this, a Constitutional amendment with respect to representation as it were in the electoral college. Now, why is that? I think the judgment was that the election of the President is one thing that has truly, may I say, national significance, in a way that is as important as the election of any single Member of the House of Representatives to the Nation as a whole, still the degree of importance obviously to the particular jurisdiction is extremely high. So I think as a prudential matter, the determination was made that with respect to an issue as grand as the election of the President of the United States, there should be no doubt, let's have a Constitutional amendment. That was a judgment call. I don't think it binds you. Ms. Norton. Thank you very much. I'd like to say to Ms. Werronen how much I appreciate the work you have done in the District for congressional voting rights, and how principled you've been, in fact, harking as you said in your testimony to where Republicans in our city and Republicans nationally had long been. We were extremely disappointed that in the 2000 Republican National Convention that the party actually removed its longstanding support for congressional voting rights. Now, you say that you will carry a plank, I wish you would tell us whether you are working on language for such a plank and whether you believe, given the fact that they actually extracted voting rights, something they had always been for, what you think are the chances of reinserting voting rights as it was before into your platform? Ms. Werronen. I will in August be, as a delegate, be a member of the platform committee. Our full D.C. Republican Committee just passed its own local platform, and that indeed contains a plank on voting rights. What we hope to do is to work with the White House and to work with the platform committee on language that affects the District of Columbia. Ms. Norton. We would love to have for the record what the local party plank would be, if you would be so kind as to submit your plank for the record. Ms. Werronen. Absolutely. Ms. Norton. Thank you. Chairman Tom Davis. Without objection. [The information referred to follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.186 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.187 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.188 Ms. Norton. I very much appreciate your testimony, Walter Smith, especially given your encyclopedic knowledge of all of the Constitutional issues involved. You indicate that you would, that Appleseed would support the approach of one House vote only, but only if we would support--let me just quote it. We would support that approach only if those were in fact steps toward ultimate full voting representation. One of the, I have raised earlier that I am literally in the process of trying to think through those steps. Because there's been a lot of lip service, almost no analytical thinking about, let's see how this would help us get to the next step. See, I think it is possible to think through that issue. What is dangerous is the notion that you don't even have to think about it somehow, if you get there you're going to get to the next step. What I'd like to know is if you have begun to think through the issue of how getting one House, something that would be, something I would devoutly desire on my watch, would in fact help us to get to the next House where frankly, all that the District needs now resides, since most of what it needs here it can get. Mr. Smith. Yes, we have thought about it, Ms. Norton. And one of the arguments in favor, if this is how it plays out, and if you end up supporting it, is that once you have the vote in one House, it gives you a platform upon which to argue, a higher platform to argue for completion of the journey, rather than doing it, as someone said before, all in one leap or one bound. But a lot of it depends, as you've pointed out more than once here this morning, in the political give and take that is going to have to occur as you build a bipartisan consensus support for one approach or the other. Ms. Norton. I would like to invite you, Mr. Smith, and Appleseed, to help me as you have in the past to think through those steps. Because I think they can be thought through. Virtually everyone at the table has been helpful in thinking through such steps before, and I think they would advance the House only proposal considerably. I'd like to ask you, Mr. Zherka, about ground breaking work that D.C. Vote did about voting rights and see if there has been any followup on that. I was astounded to discover that D.C. voting, that most Americans, even most college educated Americans, did not know that the District did not have voting rights. I wonder if D.C. Vote has any indication of whether there's been any improvement in at least the knowledge of the District's voteless status since your poll of some years ago? Mr. Zherka. We're actually working, thank you, Congresswoman, we're working very closely with some local foundations to put together a proposal and a grant to achieve that goal, to poll nationally to find out if knowledge of this problem has increased. A number of years ago there was a national poll, in 1998, that showed that a majority of Americans didn't even know that the District was disenfranchised. We need to go back and figure out if that's changed. I suspect that it may have changed a little bit, but probably not much. There's a lot of education that needs to happen. We are trying to educate people as much as we can. We're a small organization, but we're working together with the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights and other groups to put together public service announcement campaign. We'd like to have, from the chairman and from this Congress, really the freedom to give the District the freedom to spend its own money, to lobby on this issue, to educate on this issue, and to do the work that's necessary to support this movement, to support measures that are being talked about up here. So we want to urge you, Congresswoman, and the chairman, to as you're thinking about this issue, also think about the lobby prohibition rider in the appropriations bill and free up the District to engage this question and educate people. Ms. Norton. Thank you very much. I must say, I think we ought to be able to get a small grant to do this. We need to know whether or not anybody knows this except us. We really can't move very much in Congress unless we get some feedback from Americans who are astounded when they learn this. And if they don't know it, there will be no pressure out there. So I very much appreciate the work you've done in that regard. Finally, Mr. Trabue, I wonder if you'd tell us how you operate when you have matters involving the District of Columbia that need, the predicate for my question is, you obviously are from the private sector. Let me just say how much we appreciate that because the Board of Trade is regional, it has nevertheless come forward and supported D.C. voting rights. That kind of reach is very important to us. You represent many issues the way a business, and represent businesses in the District of Columbia, in the same way that your corollary organizations would represent businesses in Maryland and Virginia, let's say. What do you do if in fact you have a piece of legislation that is vital, involves a District of Columbia business matter, you have me here, how do you get that through the Senate? Tell us the processes you use. Mr. Trabue. Congresswoman Norton, let me give you a closer to home example. I work for PEPCO, as you know, and we have a number of issues that are of very great importance to us on the Federal level, particularly energy policy, because that directly affects our business. Although we are headquartered here in the District of Columbia, we are a Fortune 300 company. We don't have two Senators with whom we can directly correspond and help us on some of these Federal matters, or matters that may come before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. We work through national trade associations at great expense, mind you, to the company, to the residents and businesses here in the District of Columbia, but we have to work through national trade associations to try to make sure that some of our views are heard and hopefully incorporated in legislation that is moving before the Senate. So we are working at a great disadvantage. I take my company as an example, but there are a myriad of others here in the city who I'm sure have very similar problems and constraints. Ms. Norton. Thank you very much. And thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much. Ms. Norton. I apologize for running out early to go to the floor. Chairman Tom Davis. Mr. Clay. Mr. Clay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you and the Ranking Member Norton for bringing this important issue forward. In the interest of time, I have one question for the entire panel, and we can start with Mr. Henderson and go down the table. Let me preface this by saying that as a young, as a freshman member of the Missouri Legislature in the mid-1980's, I sponsored an amendment to a resolution that would ratify the D.C. Voting Rights Amendments, statehood amendment. Of course, as we all know, only 16 out of 38 States ratified that amendment. Almost 20 years fast forward, in your opinion, should we continue to pursue the initiative of full statehood rights for the District of Columbia, or do you think in a practical manner there should be some fallback position, or should we continue to go for two U.S. Senators as well as a voting Member in the House? And how practical do you think that is, 20 years into the future? Mr. Henderson. It's a challenging question, Mr. Clay. First of all, let me thank you for your years of support and leadership on the issue of full voting representation for D.C. citizens. As a native D.C. citizen myself, I think the issue of voting representation for the citizens of Washington is, as I noted earlier, one of the paramount human and civil rights issues of our time. I think the aspirations of D.C. citizens to be represented in both Houses of Congress, to have full voting representation, a meaningful right to participate in the debates of our time, and an ability to have an impact on the decisions that affect their lives are really one of the controlling factors of citizenship in our country as a whole. And I note at the real anomaly of having voting rights denied District residents while seeking to provide that for citizens of every other part of the world. It is quite likely that the citizens of Baghdad will have full voting representation, while the citizens of the District of Columbia will struggle to achieve that. Having said that, it is my view that those aspirations can't be squelched by political considerations that are designed to short circuit the full voting aspirations of D.C. residents. I appreciate the interim steps that are being taken here. I appreciate the legislation that is being proposed. I think Chairman Davis deserves true commendation for having led on this issue in the way that he's chosen to do it. But I think in the final analysis, the full voting representation of D.C. residents cannot be short-circuited by other political considerations. I will leave to others the question of what form that representation takes, but it is most important in my view that it be provided pursuant to the Constitutional requirement of citizenship in the United States. My last point is this. As a D.C. resident, I support the notion of statehood for the District of Columbia. I think it's an important consideration. That's a personal view. But having said that, I think the issue of voting representation in the full measure can be stated in a number of ways, and I've stated my view on that. Mr. Clay. Thank you for your response, Mr. Henderson. Mr. Starr. Judge Starr. Congressman, that's an ultimate prudential judgment that you and others will have to make, and I'm ill equipped to provide guidance no that. I do want to just share with you the preamble to the Constitution, because we hear at lot and understandably about individual rights and individual liberties. But it's individual rights and individual liberties within a Federal republic, that is we do not vote as a nation, we vote as inhabitants of a particular State, and the Constitution is filled with that kind of structural language. And it begins at the very outset. It talks about the people of the United States, but in order to form a more perfect union, and of course that's a union of States. So I would simply say that the Constitution reflects a seat of government, a national seat of government and without, I hope, introducing into the world of guidance and advice, I would simply say that prudence might suggest that it makes sense to lift up the value of individual liberty in terms of the right to vote, without doing that which might be viewed as enormous structural damage to our union, that is, seeking to in effect cerate a state without going through the entire Constitutional process. So you will have your own experience by virtue of the amendment process, and that will guide and inform your judgment as to whether something short of an amendment is wise at this particular time. Mr. Clay. You don't think we're locked in with 100 U.S. Senators, do you? In the last 45 years, we added Alaska and Hawaii, and then added to the numbers in the Senate. Judge Starr. No, that's exactly right. As I said earlier, in response to a different question, I think there is no lock- in effect here. And again, my simple point today has been that Congress does enjoy very broad powers under Article I, Section 8, Clause 17. And that I think is an interesting and creative way to now think about the issue of individual voting rights within the district. Mr. Clay. All right. Thank you. Mr. Zherka. Congressman, to answer our question, I think clearly District residents want and deserve representation in the Congress and also control over their own lives, particularly their local laws. One of the reasons representation is important is because of the consistent and unwarranted interference of Congress in local matters. So as we look at representation, we're looking at different options to achieve representation. I think as we look at issues of local control, there are certainly different ways to achieve that as well. Statehood has been one way that would certainly achieve both, but the Congress is also looking at budget autonomy, and other issues that deal at the local control issue. But certainly District residents deserve control over their local affairs, as well as representation in the House and Senate. Mr. Clay. Mr. Smith. Mr. Smith. Congressman Clay, I think the ultimate goal has to be full representation for citizens of the District. And I think what we're doing today is a step toward achieving that goal. As Mr. Henderson said, it isn't clear exactly what the details are going to be. But as long as there is a bipartisan commitment to getting there, I think we are going to get there. But the sea change, I think that you're hearing here today, between now and back in the early 1980's, when we were seeking to get a Constitutional amendment, is I think there is a powerful argument available, and Judge Starr has made it today, that we do not need a Constitutional amendment to get there. This can be accomplished by simple legislation. And that I believe is what the Congress ought to be about. Mr. Clay. Ms. Werronen, if you would respond. My time is getting short. Ms. Werronen. Congressman, we are very proud of our status as a Federal city, and it is unique and we support at this time as a first step full voting rights in the House of Representatives. Mr. Trabue. Thank you. On behalf of the Board of Trade, I would say that the Board of Trade does support full voting representation for the residents of the District of Columbia. Like many of the panelists before us, we think this is a good first step toward achieving that goal. Mr. Clay. Thank you. I thank the panel for their responses. Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much. Mr. Henderson, let me just note, you supported the 23rd amendment, and yet that wasn't the ultimate goal, correct? Mr. Henderson. Correct, Mr. Chairman. And again---- Chairman Tom Davis. You supported the non-voting delegate, and yet that wasn't the ultimate goal? Mr. Henderson. Supported the non-voting delegate and I think you can point to other points along the journey that we have made as a city with some shared State responsibilities. Again, some of this may be determined incrementally. We have certainly supported that in the past. And yet each stop along the way, we have reaffirmed our complete commitment for full voting rights. I think your bill today certainly precipitates a conversation about the importance of full voting rights, while at the same time making a step in the right direction on the issue of voting representation in a practical way that deserves consideration. So I think that the sea change that Walter Smith and others on this panel, the fact that you have been able to achieve a bipartisan, non-partisan approach to the important civil and human rights issue of full voting representation shouldn't be denied. I think the conversation that will proceed from this point forward is one about how we construct the legislative vehicle necessary to get the support, the 218 votes needed in the House, to get this thing enacted. That's a particular political question. Obviously you are in a better position to evaluate it than we. But I think it's an important step. Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you. And I would just add, I think if the House can move through the Senate, where Senator Hatch chairs the appropriate committee in the Senate, from Utah, is something that would also take into consideration at this point. Voltaire once said that he may disagree with what you say, but he would fight to the death to defend your right to say it. A lot on our side probably aren't going to like the representation the District gets the first time out. But I think I would fight to the death to say this is a basic right that belongs to the citizens of the District as it belongs to all American citizens. And as I said, we're fighting around the globe for this for people. We ought to bring it to our Nation's Capital. And any way we can get it done, incrementally or whatever, we want to continue to look at it. We want to continue to work with all of you as we develop a plan. I'm not sure it will go necessarily in this Congress, because we have some issues in the background that may take a little time, but not a lot of time to resolve. But what we are reaching is a consensus on both sides that this is a human right that needs to be addressed. You have all added a lot to the record today. I appreciate everyone taking their time. The record will remain open for 10 days to other groups who weren't able to participate in the hearing to submit statements. The hearing is adjourned. [Whereupon, at 12:50 p.m., the committee was adjourned, to reconvene at the call of the Chair.] [The prepared statement of Hon. Wm. Lacy Clay, copies of H.R. 1285, H.R. 381, H.R. 3709, and H.R. 4640, and additional information submitted for the hearing record follow:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.167 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.168 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.169 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.118 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.119 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.120 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.121 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.122 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.123 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.124 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.125 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.126 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.127 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.128 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.129 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.130 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.131 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.132 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.133 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.134 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.135 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.136 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.137 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.138 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.139 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.140 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.141 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.142 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.143 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.144 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.145 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.146 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.147 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.148 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.149 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.150 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.151 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.152 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.153 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.154 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.155 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.156 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.157 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.158 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.159 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.160 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.161 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.162 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.163 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.164 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.165 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.166 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.170 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.171 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.172 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.173 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.174 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.175 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.176 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.177 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.178 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.179 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.180 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.181 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.182 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.216 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.183 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.184 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.185 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.189 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.190 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.191 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.192 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.193 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.194 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.195 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.196 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.197 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.198 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.199 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.200 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.201 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.202 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.203 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.204 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.205 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.206 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.207 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.208 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.209 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.210 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.211 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.212 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.213 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.214 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.215 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.220 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T6625.117 <all>