Legislation News & Report (TM) 

TheWeekInCongress.com (TM)

Managing America: Government

TheWeekInCongress.com (TM)

Week Ending March 23, 2006

H.R.1433 To provide for the treatment of the District of Columbia as a Congressional district for purposes of representation in the House of Representatives, and for other purposes.

Half million people live in the District without voting representation in the US House or Senate. Although the District of Columbia is represented in the House of Representatives its representative has no floor voting privileges.

First the District would be seen as a State but would not become one rather would be seen as a congressional voting district. The District does vote in local and federal elections and does have two electors for the presidential election electoral college.

The new Representative would be given the same ability to make appointments to the US military academies as do other Members as such the number of appointees to the various military academies is modified in the bill.

The bill provides for an increase of total House membership to 437 and considers that Utah due to population changes shown in the 2000 census will qualify for an additional House seat. The new Utah seat will be at large until 2012.

Campaign finance laws and other election oriented regulations would be applied to the District

The District of Columbia was created in part due to the earliest Congress being confronted by US soldiers of the Revolutionary War threatening Congress because they had not been paid. The concept of a Federally controlled (and protected) district was wise.

Sponsor:  Rep. Eleanor H. Norton (D-DC)

Vote: Consideration of the bill was delayed.

Cost to the taxpayers: "CBO estimates that enacting the bill would increase direct spending by about $200,000 in 2008 and by about $2.5 million over the 2008-2017 period. In addition, implementing the bill would have discretionary costs of about $1 million in 2008 and about $9 million over the 2008-2012 period, assuming the availability of the appropriated funds."   

Earmark Certification:   "H.R. 1433 does not include any congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or limited tariff benefits as defined in clause 9(d), 9(e), or 9(f) of rule XXI."

## All Rights Reserved. © 2007 TheWeekInCongress.com(TM)

No reproduction, language translation or distribution without written permission from TheWeekInCongress.com.(TM)

MORE INFORMATION

How and why the District was formed

Five amendments were considered by the Committee:

Mr. Westmoreland offered an amendment, passed by voice vote, to clarify that the District of Columbia shall not be considered a state for purposes of representation in the Senate.

Mr. Issa offered an amendment, passed by voice vote, recognizing that the District of Columbia is drawn from the State of Maryland.

Mr. McHenry offered an amendment to cede the District of Columbia back to the state of Maryland. The amendment was ruled not germane. Mr. McHenry requested an appeal of the ruling of the Chair. The Committee voted to sustain the ruling of the Chair by a 17-5 rollcall vote.

Mr. McHenry offered an amendment to prevent the bill from taking effect until a Constitutional amendment is ratified giving Congress the authority to enact legislation granting representation in Congress. The amendment was ruled not germane.

Mr. Westmoreland offered an amendment, rejected on a 4-22 rollcall vote, to require that if there is no `partisan balance' in added representation then the bill is null and void.

Congress finds as follows:

(1) Over half a million people living in the District of Columbia, the capital of our democratic Nation, lack direct voting representation in the United States Senate and House of Representatives.

(2) District of Columbia residents have fought and died to defend our democracy in every war since the War of Independence.

(3) District of Columbia residents pay billions of dollars in Federal taxes each year.

(4) Our Nation is founded on the principles of `one person, one vote' and `government by the consent of the governed'.

How and why the District was formed

HISTORY

The idea for a federal district arose out of an incident that took place in 1783 while the Continental Congress was in session in Philadelphia. When a crowd of Revolutionary War soldiers, who had not been paid, gathered in protest outside the building, the Congress requested help from the Pennsylvania militia.

The state refused, and the Congress was forced to adjourn and reconvene in New Jersey. After that incident, the Framers concluded there was a need for a Federal District, under solely federal control, for the protection of the Congress and for the territorial integrity of the capital.

So the Framers of the Constitution gave Congress broad authority to create such a Federal District and broad authority to govern such a place. That is the limit of what the Framers say about a Federal District in the Constitution: that there should be a Federal District and that it should be under Congressional authority.

After ratification of the Constitution, one of the first issues to face the new Congress was where to locate this Federal District. Some wanted it in New York, others wanted it in Philadelphia, still others wanted it on the Potomac. These sectional factions fought a fierce political battle to decide the matter because they believed they were founding a great city, a new Rome. They expected this new city to have all the benefits of the great capitals of Europe.

They never once talked about denying that city's inhabitants the right to vote.

Finally, Secretary of State Jefferson brokered a deal that allowed the city to be placed on the banks of the Potomac in exchange for Congress paying the Revolutionary War debt. New York got the debt paid and Philadelphia got the capital for ten years. Then, as now, those political decisions were shaped by the issues of the day.

In 1790, Congress passed the Residence Act, in which the right to vote was given to those residing in the new District. While the capital was being established, however, those living here were permitted to continue to vote where they had before, in their states.

From 1790-1800, District residents were able to vote in Congressional elections in Maryland and Virginia, but not because they were citizens of those states. After all, the cession had ended their political link with those states. 1

[Footnote] Instead, their voting rights derived from Congressional action under the District Clause, recognizing and ratifying ceding states' laws as the applicable law for the now-federal territory until further legislation. 2

[Footnote] Therefore, it was not the cessions themselves but the federal assumption of authority in 1800 that deprived District residents of representation in Congress.

[Footnote 1: See Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244, 260-61 (1901); Reily v. Lamar, 6 U.S. (2 Cranch) 344, 356 (1805); Hobson v. Tobriner, 255 F. Supp. 295, 297 (D.D.C. 1966).]

[Footnote 2: Indeed, even after the formal assumption of federal responsibility in December 1800, Congress enacted further legislation providing that Maryland and Virginia law `shall be and continue in force' in the areas of the District ceded by that state. Act of Feb. 27, 1801, ch. 15, Sec. 1, 2 Stat. 103.]

The seat of government officially moved to Washington in 1800. In his final address to the Sixth Congress, less than a week after it took up residence in the new Federal District, President John Adams reminded Members, `it is with you, gentlemen, to consider whether local powers over the District of Columbia vested by the Constitution in Congress * * * shall be immediately exercised.'

That one statement explains the nature of the debate to follow.

Once again, the issues of the day shaped the actions of Congress. The political parties could not come to an agreement. The Federalists wanted to ensure strong central control over the city. Anti-federalist Republicans wanted limited authority and distrusted all things urban.

With Jefferson and his Republicans preparing to take control of the presidency and Congress, a pervasive atmosphere of crisis compelled the Federalists into action. If a bill was not passed before the Jeffersonians took over, it never would pass. Eventually, the Congress passed a stripped down version of a bill authored by a Virginia Congressman, `Light Horse Harry' Lee. It simply stated that the laws of Virginia and Maryland then in effect, having been superseded in the District, would still apply.

We may never know why this version was passed. No records survived. But there is no evidence that the Founding Fathers--who had just put their lives on the line to forge a representative government--determined the only way to secure a representative government was to deny representation to some of their fellow citizens. One historian aptly described the process as a `rushed and improvised accommodation to political reality, necessitated by the desperate logic of lame duck political maneuvering.' 3

[Footnote] But the inelegant compromise ultimately adopted left a decidedly undemocratic accident in its wake: District residents had no vote in Congress.

[Footnote 3: William C. diGiacomantonio, `To Make Hay While the Sun Shines': D.C. Governance as an Episode in the Revolution of 1800,' Kenneth R. Bowling and Donald R. Kennon, Ed., Establishing Congress (Ohio University Press, 2005) page 55.]

As early as 1801, the citizens of the town of Alexandria petitioned Congress to create a functioning municipal government within the District and provide its citizens representation in the House of Representatives. 4

[Footnote] Congress took action during the 20th century to create a municipal government for the District of Columbia, but the national capital remains without voting representation in Congress. Whether the reason for a lack of political representation be political deadlock, inattention or a misunderstanding of the problem, Congress has failed to successfully grant the rights it removed in the Organic Act of 1800.

[Footnote 4: Petition to Congress, `Memorial of Sundry Freeholders and Inhabitants of the Town of Alexandria, in the District of Columbia,' January 26, 1801.]

Our Founding Fathers left us a tool in the Constitution to deal with future problems. The District Clause in the Constitution, Article 1, section 8, clause 17, is there for a reason. Congress reaches the zenith of its power in dealing with issues relating to the District. Over the years, Congress has exercised this power to treat the District as a `State' when necessary to ensure that the citizens of the city have substantially the same rights as all other Americans.

## All Rights Reserved. © 2007 TheWeekInCongress.com.(TM)

No reproduction, language translation or distribution without written permission from TheWeekInCongress.com.(TM)