Mr. Speaker, it is a stain on our national honor that the citizens of our Capital City are disenfranchised without any votes in Congress. We presume to lecture other nations on the importance of democracy; but today we are being put to our own test, and we must not fail.

Now, speakers on the other side say that this bill is unconstitutional. They say, and they point out correctly, that the Constitution says that the House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second year by the people of the several States. Washington, they say, isn't a State. QED. That's the end of the subject. But no, it isn't. It is not the end of the subject. The fact is, article III, section 2 says the judicial power, Federal jurisdiction shall extend to controversies between citizens of different States. Controversies between citizens of different States, that is the basis for jurisdiction for Federal lawsuits, some Federal lawsuits, many Federal lawsuits.

Well, what about a controversy when someone from the District of Columbia sues someone from Virginia or New York or Pennsylvania? Well, in 1805, the Supreme Court ruled that diversity jurisdiction did not exist between a citizen of the District of Columbia and a citizen of Virginia, in the case of Hepburn v. Ellzey, because the District of Columbia was not a State.

But the Court also said that Congress, under its power to legislate for the District of Columbia, could decide that, for purposes of diversity jurisdiction, the city of Washington, D.C. should be considered a State. Congress took its time in doing so, but did make that decision.

And there was a Supreme Court decision in 1949, a mere 145 years later. These things don't go that rapidly. 1949, in National Mutual Insurance Company of the District of Columbia v. Tidewater, the United States Supreme Court said, aha, Congress, having acted, the District of Columbia is a State for purposes of diversity jurisdiction under article III of the Constitution.

Congress has as much power to decide that the residents of the District of Columbia have the right to vote for Congress, which requires States, as Congress has the right to decide, upheld by the Supreme Court, that residents of the District of Columbia, have the right to sue citizens of other States. If the Congress has that power for purposes of giving the District of Columbia residents the right to sue and be sued by citizens of other States in Federal courts for diversity jurisdiction, it has the same power, the exact same constitutional power to decide that, for purposes of representation in Congress, citizens of the District of Columbia may have that representation in Congress.

So it is, I think, clear, but certainly very arguable, that Congress has ample power constitutionally. And if someone wants to challenge them, let them go to court. But it is not a valid argument to oppose this bill which is necessary for elementary democracy in this country.