[Pages H2825-H2837]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 1433, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA HOUSE
VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 2007

Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 260 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

H. Res. 260

Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order to consider in the House the bill (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. All points of order against consideration of the
bill are waived except those arising under clause 9 or 10 of
rule XXI. The amendment printed in the report of the
Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution shall be
considered as adopted. The bill, as amended, shall be
considered as read. All points of order against the bill, as
amended, are waived. The previous question shall be
considered as ordered on the bill, as amended, to final
passage without intervening motion except: (1) one hour and
twenty minutes of debate, with one hour equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on the Judiciary and 20 minutes equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform; and (2) one
motion to recommit with or without instructions.
Sec. 2. During consideration of H.R. 1433 pursuant to this
resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous
question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the
bill to a time designated by the Speaker.

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Capuano). The gentleman from New York
(Mr. Arcuri) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield the
customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). All
time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.
Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
(Mr. ARCURI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)

[[Page H2826]]

Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 260 provides for
consideration of H.R. 1433, the District of Columbia House Voting
Rights Act of 2007, under a closed rule. The rule provides 1 hour and
20 minutes of general debate, with 1 hour equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee
on the Judiciary, and 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the
chairman and the ranking minority member of the Committee on Oversight
and Government Reform.
The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill
except those arising under clauses 9 and 10 of rule XXI. The rule
provides that the amendment printed in the report shall be considered
as adopted, and the bill, as amended, shall be considered as read. The
rule waives all points of order against the bill.
Mr. Speaker, this Nation was built upon the principle that it was
patently unjust to require people to pay taxes to a government within
which they had no direct involvement, what came to be familiarly called
``taxation without representation.'' The fact that approximately
600,000 U.S. citizens live under taxation without representation within
the United States today is repugnant to our very notion of democracy
and to those who fought and died in creating this great Nation. How can
the United States deny democracy in its capital while it promotes
democracy abroad?
These citizens pay billions of dollars in Federal taxes and have
sacrificed their lives in Iraq and every other war since the American
Revolution. This is taxation without representation at its worst, and
it is completely undemocratic. No other democracy in the world denies
to its citizens in its capital city the right to vote. We here in
America, the symbol of democracy to so much of the world, must not deny
that right to our citizens.
This bipartisan legislation would correct this injustice by granting
the citizens of our Nation's capital with a voting representative in
the House of Representatives.
Some of my colleagues have suggested that this legislation is
unconstitutional, that we in Congress will be acting outside our power
in enacting this bill. To this, I must respectfully and strongly
disagree. Article I, section 8 of the Constitution clearly enumerates
the powers of Congress. Among the powers listed in Article I, section 8
states that Congress shall have the power ``to exercise exclusive
legislation in all cases whatsoever over'' the District of Columbia.
Article I, section 8 also gives Congress the power ``to make all laws
which shall be necessary and proper'' to execute its enumerated powers.
Further, in 1790, Congress passed the Residence Act, giving residents
of the new District of Columbia the right to vote. Since the capital
was still being established, citizens were allowed to continue voting
in their States, Maryland and Virginia. Congress then took this right
away by statute in 1800 when the Federal Government assumed control of
the District of Columbia. In the political battles that followed,
District residents were denied a vote in Congress. Certainly, if
Congress can remove the right by statute, so too can it reinstate that
right by statute.
In the landmark Supreme Court case McCulloch v. Maryland, Chief
Justice John Marshall said: ``Let the end be legitimate, let it be
within the scope of the Constitution, and all means which are
appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are not
prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the Constitution,
are constitutional.''
Extending full representation in the House to residents of the
District of Columbia is a legitimate end. It is within the scope of
Congress' power to exercise exclusive legislation in matters concerning
the District of Columbia and consistent with not only the letter of the
Constitution but also the spirit in which the Constitution was written
by our Founding Fathers, that is, ``taxation without representation is
tyranny.''
I, for one, want to correct this grave injustice and provide the
citizens of Washington, D.C. with the same rights afforded to every
other citizen in this great Nation. Our actions today will do just
that.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this closed rule
and to the blatantly unconstitutional measure that the Democrat
majority is bringing to the House floor today.
There is not much to celebrate in this deeply flawed legislation that
constitutional scholar and law professor Jonathan Turley has called
``the most premeditated, unconstitutional act by Congress in decades.''

{time} 1030

But I am an optimist, and I have found a very small silver lining in
what I think is a cynical political exercise that is designated for
President Bush's veto pen, that is, if it ever makes it that far.
Today, the American taxpayer can be grateful that at least this week
that the Democrat majority has trained its sights on simply trampling
on the Constitution rather than propping up the fledgling ranks of big
union bosses for the fourth week in a row. While this may not seem like
much, it seems to be the best that the Democrat majority is willing to
do at this time.
My opposition to this measure stems from its incompatibility with a
pretty basic foundation of American Government, the Constitution.
Section 2 of Article I clearly states that ``the House of
Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second year
by the People of the several States.'' The way I see it, any fourth-
grader in the country can tell you that D.C. is simply not a State.
Supporters of this legislation will claim that the ``District
Clause,'' which gives Congress the power to legislate over our Nation's
government seat, also gives Congress the power to grant D.C. a Member
of Congress. But this same clause makes it clear that by its very
nature, D.C. is not a State, which brings us back to the original
problem of this bill being completely unconstitutional.
But do not take my word for it. If the Democrat leadership will not
listen to reason, one would hope that at least they would listen to one
of our Founding Fathers, Alexander Hamilton, who offered an amendment
to the Constitution that would have provided D.C. with a vote in the
House. Unfortunately, that amendment was defeated on July 22, 1788.
But if neither my word nor the Constitution nor the actions of our
Founding Fathers is good enough, I wonder if the Democrat majority
would be willing to listen to an equal branch of our government for
their opinion on this matter.
In 2000, the Federal district court in Washington, D.C., concluded
that ``the Constitution does not contemplate that the District may
serve as a State for the purposes of apportionment of Congressional
representatives.'' It seems pretty clear to me, but perhaps not every
Member of this body.
So, for a moment, let us ignore my word, the Constitution, the
actions of our Founding Fathers, and the decisions of the Federal
judiciary.
What would it mean if Congress simply gave D.C. a seat in the House?
Rather than going through the necessary process of passing a
constitutional amendment, which, by the way, was attempted in 1978 and
failed, it would create a precedent that said Congress would give the
District three votes next year, or they could give them 10. It would
mean that if Congress did not like the way the new Member from D.C. was
voting, it could simply take the seat away, because if Congress has the
power to create a seat, it certainly has the power to take that seat
away, which it cannot do under the Constitution, the same Constitution
that gives States those rights.
It would mean that Congress could deny D.C. voters the protection
from, let us say, racial discrimination, given by the 15th amendment to
the Constitution, or deny them protection from discrimination based on
sex given to them in the 19th amendment. Is this the kind of precedent
that we should be setting?
But rather than discuss the facts or logic of this approach, I
suspect that the supporters of this legislation will come to the floor
and simply talk about fairness. But I fail to see how it is fair that
this would give every voter in Utah an unprecedented two votes,

[[Page H2827]]

one for their Member of Congress and one for a new at-large Member,
while keeping the one man, one vote principle in every other State.
Perhaps a Member on the Democrat side would be kind enough to come
down to the floor and explain this logic to me, but I am sure I will
not hold my breath.
Mr. Speaker, as Members of Congress, we take an oath to uphold and
support the Constitution, not to trample on it. Personally, I think
this is a fairly low bar that has been established. So last night in
the Rules Committee, Congressman McHenry and I offered a commonsense
amendment to have this new Member from D.C. act to preserve the
individual right to keep and bear arms of the residents of the District
of Columbia as also provided in the second amendment to the
Constitution and upheld on March 9, 2007, by the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the D.C. Circuit.
No matter what the supporters of this bill may claim to the contrary,
the Constitution is not a cafeteria. You simply cannot pick and choose
which part you are going to respect and which part you are going to
ignore.
That is why our Framers, in their infinite wisdom, created an
orderly, lawful process for amending the Constitution, if you so
choose. So despite the fact that this underlying bill is designated for
history's trash can, I am attempting to improve it slightly by forcing
this entire body to recognize that the rights given in the whole
Constitution, not just certain parts, should be recognized by anyone
who claims to uphold and defend our government's founding document.
Unfortunately, this amendment was defeated on a party-line vote in
the Rules Committee, which is fast becoming the graveyard of good ideas
in the U.S. House of Representatives.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to reject this rule and the
underlying assault on the Constitution.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I respectfully disagree with my friend and colleague
from Texas. I think he is trying to characterize this bill as an
attempt to create statehood for the District of Columbia, which is not
what this bill does. This bill attempts to do what the Constitution
says that Congress can do, and that is, exercise exclusive legislation
in all cases whatsoever over the District. That is what we are doing
here, and there is precedent to that.
In 1949 in the Tidewater case, the Supreme Court upheld a decision
which allowed Congress to give diversity jurisdiction to the District
of Columbia, and now, generally, diversity jurisdiction only can occur
between States, and despite the fact that clearly the District of
Columbia was not a State, they were able, through an enactment by
Congress, to be given that status of diversity jurisdiction.
The District of Columbia is not a State. It is not being treated as a
State, but rather as a district for the capital, for the Federal
capital. So it does have a special and unique treatment, and I think
the Founding Fathers realized that it would be different, that it would
not be like a State, and, in fact, it was part of the history why they
came and created a capital.
When they were in Philadelphia, they were not happy with the fact
that they had to constantly appeal to the Pennsylvania Legislature for
the right to do different things, so they intended to create a capital
that they would be able to have jurisdiction over.
That was the historical reason why the District of Columbia was
created. So the fact that Congress then gave itself, or the
Constitution gave Congress the right to make laws and make rules for
the District of Columbia is the reason why today we are introducing
this bill.
So I believe that we are not attempting to give D.C. statehood, but,
rather, to give it a right to vote in this body, which is exclusively
within the jurisdiction of Congress and within the right of Congress to
do.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the ranking member of the Committee on
the Judiciary.
(Mr. SENSENBRENNER asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Speaker, I am concerned that this bill was
unconstitutional for the reasons stated by my friend from Texas (Mr.
Sessions), but I am afraid that the way this bill treats the at-large
seat in Utah makes it even more unconstitutional.
Not since the Supreme Court issued its string of one person, one vote
decisions in the 1960s has Congress seen fit to amend the law to allow
both at-large and district elections for Members of the House of
Representatives. This bill does that and, in effect, gives the citizens
of Utah the right to vote for two Representatives, one in the district
and one at-large, which is something that is denied to every other
citizen of the United States.
Even if this is not a violation of equal protection under the law, I
think that it is extremely bad policy because it is in derogation from
what those of us who have fought to enact and reenact the Voting Rights
Act have attempted to do, and the Supreme Court has said on numerous
occasions that at-large elections are in derogation of giving
minorities effective representation not just in Congress, but for local
legislative bodies like city councils and county commissions.
I fear that if this act is held constitutional with an at-large seat
in Utah, that precedent will be used in jurisdictions covered by the
Voting Rights Act to once again go back to at-large elections and to
diminish the votes that minorities have enjoyed ever since the 1982
reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act.
Finally, having an at-large seat in Utah is going to make it probably
more difficult to uphold this law, and the reason I say that is that if
this law is held unconstitutional with four Members from Utah being
elected by district, effectively a quarter of the people of Utah will
be disenfranchised since the bill has a nonseverability clause, and
thus, if D.C. brings the bill down, one-quarter of the people of Utah
will have no representative in Congress. That would be a powerful
argument to uphold the constitutionality of this bill, and one that
cannot be avoided.
Unfortunately, the majority on the Rules Committee decided to play
partisan politics. They are jeopardizing the litigation of this
legislation. I would hope that they would think twice, and they would
vote this rule down.
I was prepared to support this legislation both in this Congress and
the last Congress if Utah had four Representatives elected by
districts. What you have done here, you have lost me. There is still
time to correct this, and I would hope that the rule would be rejected.

General Leave

Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks
and insert extraneous material in the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Utah (Mr. Bishop), a former member of the Rules Committee.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for
yielding.
I come here with a sense of disappointment, but, admittedly, not
surprise. Last night in the Rules Committee, I had the opportunity of
listening to a brilliant amendment that I thought was brilliantly
presented. I did it, so it was brilliant. Unfortunately, that
amendment, which was a new issue to this debate that has not been
discussed in other venues or has not been discussed in another
committee, is a technical amendment that was designed neither to
inhibit nor to promote the passage of the underlying bill.
If Utah becomes part of this bill and it is passed, we would be
required in some way, shape and form to have a special election, which
would cost the State of Utah about $7 million and require the
legislature to come into special session to create new rules for a

[[Page H2828]]

special election, as well as to appropriate money that does not now
exist for that.
We all know there will be lawsuits on this bill, and it will take
time for those lawsuits to work the court. My amendment, a technical
amendment, was simply to say let us start the process of the election
in the 2008 election cycle, which would simply say there would be no
extra cost to an entity for performance. There would be regular
process, and that would give plenty of time for the lawsuits to have
their way work through the courts. It seems ridiculous for the State of
Utah to have to spend $7 million on a special election that may then be
invalidated by a court action later on.
I have to admit that in some respects I feel frustrated the way the
State of Utah has been treated in this entire process, forced to have a
special session to draw a map, a map in which the criteria was for
incumbent protection, never before done, and now forced to spend money
on a special election, when an alternate is completely there.

{time} 1045

Not to allow that to even be discussed on the floor does not help the
body politic that is here.
I also notice that my friend from Georgia has come down here. Mr.
Westmoreland had an amendment that was discussed in the committee and
passed in the committee. Yet this Rules Committee has stripped his
amendment and offered a closed rule, so they deny him the opportunity
to even discuss the amendment that has already been passed.
Time after time in the last few years I sat where the gentleman from
Texas sat and was denigrated by people who said we denied amendments
that had failed in committee and were therefore stopping the democratic
process. Here we have an example of someone who passed an amendment in
committee that has now been stripped out and is no longer being allowed
to discuss it on a bill that is purported to be expanding the concept
of democracy in the first place.
I realize that when we talk about process, that is extremely boring
to the American people. It's boring to us. Actually, most of what we
say on this floor is boring to almost all of us.
But the real inconvenient truth is that poor process equates to poor
policy. We will see another rule that comes out here today as well that
would clearly illustrate how poor process, in an unprecedented fashion,
would clearly result in poor policy.
When I was a young legislator, I one time was somewhat of a rebel, I
redeemed myself and eventually became speaker, but in my second session
I had a position that was at odds with my own leadership and was
numerically outnumbered. But they allowed the process in Utah to work
so I stayed at the table, and eventually we designed and came up with a
product that was actually before for all of us. That is what we should
be doing here today.
Somehow I heard, over the past 10 years, how the Rules Committee,
when a different party was in charge, is where democracy goes to die.
Unfortunately, this day the Rules Committee is once again where
democracy goes to die. Mr. Westmoreland, who will be speaking in a few
minutes, is living proof of how that happens.
Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, if I could inquire upon the time that
remains on both sides.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 16\1/2\ minutes remaining.
The gentleman from New York has 23\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. SESSIONS. If I could inquire from the gentleman from New York if
he has any additional speakers, with the understanding that he has the
right to close.
Mr. ARCURI. Yes, sir, we have two additional speakers.
Mr. SESSIONS. You do anticipate two additional speakers?
Mr. ARCURI. Yes, sir.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman to run down his
time.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I would just like to point out, in listening
to the debate, that when one looks at some of the decisions from the
Supreme Court with respect to the steps that Congress, the powers of
Congress, you can't help but think of Marbury v. Madison, which is one
of the first great cases considered by Justice Marshall in the early
Supreme Court.
In that case, the Supreme Court basically outlined what was the
framework for the separation of power between the different branches of
government. Basically, it set forth to Congress that it could not
dictate to the Supreme Court or to the justice branch of government
what the jurisdictions of or what their jurisdiction was.
Basically, what that decision came to recognize is the fact that
within the particular branches of government, each branch has exclusive
power and that only the Constitution can set jurisdiction.
Clearly, that is what we are doing here today. The Constitution makes
it very clear that Congress has exclusive legislative right over the
District. That is exactly what we are attempting to do today. We are
attempting to give the District of Columbia the right to vote, as we
are entitled to do, as the Constitution clearly enumerates that
Congress has the right to do.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).
Mr. WESTMORELAND. I want to thank my friend from Texas for yielding.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New York was making a great argument
for the bill itself, but we are talking about the rule. We are talking
about the ability of every Member of this body to be able to amend the
bill. We go through a committee process here, well, I shouldn't say all
the time, because in the 110th Congress, it has been very rare that we
have gone through a regular order. But in this particular case we did
go through a regular order as far as the bill going to Government
Reform.
I had an amendment. The amendment was pretty simple. It said,
notwithstanding the fact that the District of Columbia would get a vote
on the floor of this body, but that the intention, and the end result,
was for them not to have representation in the United States Senate.
Now, that was fairly simple. In fact, I believe it passed Government
Reform unanimously. My 700,000 people that I represent in Georgia had
an opportunity to amend this bill.
But because of the closed rule that we have today, an amendment that
was passed, agreed to by both sides, put in the bill in Government
Reform, has come to the floor without it.
You know, this was hyped up to be the most ethical Congress. I
haven't seen any proof of that. It has been hyped up to be the most
open Congress where all Members would have an opportunity to
participate. We certainly haven't seen that.
This is government almost by gradualism. We are gradually getting to
where the leadership of the majority party wants to go. I believe that
is to give D.C. the ability to have Members of Congress.
Now, this little book right here, the gentleman from New York was
quoting parts of the Constitution, but he didn't quote all of it.
Because in here I think it lays out very plainly who is to vote on the
floor of this House and who is to have representation in this House,
and who is to have representation in the United States Senate.
I think this is the first step. I think my amendment made it clear
that the intention of this bill was not to gradually give them the
ability to have seats in the Senate. But because it made it so clear
and described so clearly the legislative intent of this body, they
won't allow it to be in the bill, because their intention is to go
further.
I would hope that one day we would. I hear people's lips, I hear
things coming out of people's mouths. I see lips moving, talking about
bipartisanism: we are going to be bipartisan; we are going to let
everybody participate.
I haven't seen that in action. Let me say this, I don't think anybody
has ever written a perfect bill, a bill that couldn't be adapted or
expanded or explained a little bit better, a bill that couldn't be made
better, a bill that couldn't be perfected.
In fact, if you read the rules of this House, it talks about
amendments and

[[Page H2829]]

perfection and perfecting the amendment, perfecting the bill. That is
all we want an opportunity to do. I think everybody in this body, all
435 of us, I think the people that we represent, all they want us to
have is an opportunity to try to help perfect the bill or make it
better.
So far, we have been shut out of that process. I think it is a shame.
As my friend, Mr. Bishop, said, a lot of people don't pay any attention
to the process up here. But when the process is broken, the product is
flawed.
I think the closed rule on this important bill is an example that
this is a very broken process.
Mr. ARCURI. I thank the gentleman from Georgia for his remarks. He
talks about bipartisanship. Frankly, I can't think of an issue that is
more bipartisan than giving each and every American the right to vote.
That is exactly what we are attempting to do here today.
You know, I can't help but think as a new Member of Congress that
when we came down back in January to be sworn in, and my daughter and
my family were here, one of the first things that my daughter said to
me was noticing on a license plate ``taxation without representation.''
She asked me what that meant and why they were talking about that
because she remembered studying about it in school.
It is critical. It is so important to us as a Nation to practice what
we preach. We are in other places in the world. We are fighting wars
for freedom, and we talk about how important it is to give people the
right to vote and to be free, and that is exactly what we are doing
here today.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, if I could please inquire upon the time
remaining on both sides.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas has 12\1/2\
minutes, and the gentleman from New York has 21 minutes remaining.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, if I could, I would like to try to get us
back to a balance if we could. I would encourage the gentleman to run
his time down.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ARCURI. We anticipate having our Speaker, and we continue to
reserve the balance of our time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman, the
ranking member of the Rules Committee from San Dimas, California (Mr.
Dreier).
(Mr. DREIER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DREIER. I want to express appreciation to my very good friend
from Dallas and my new friend from New York for their management of
this rule.
Mr. Speaker, I want to say that to me it is very clear. Mr. Sessions'
very able assistant just gave me a copy of the Constitution. Article 1,
section 2 says: ``The House of Representatives shall be composed of
Members chosen every second year by the people of the several States.''
Until we change the Constitution and make the District of Columbia a
State or include it as a State or as a part of Maryland, it seems to me
that this is unconstitutional.
I mean, I am not a constitutional expert, but I know that Mr.
Sensenbrenner stood here. We had a wide range of other people who have
been arguing. I listened this morning to that great constitutional
scholar Jonathan Turley from George Washington University on National
Public Radio. He was talking about this exact line that I just read,
arguing that it is unconstitutional.
I don't exactly understand why it is we are here. But there is
something that hasn't been discussed at all in this debate, and that is
how are we going to pay for this thing. We do know that we have got
this structure that is put into place, PAYGO, as it's called.
Well, there was mandatory spending in this to establish a new Member
of Congress; and under PAYGO, the rules that are adopted, the costs
clearly have to be offset. The offset that is self-executed into this
bill, by the rule, raises the requirement for income tax withholding by
three one-thousandths of a percent. It's a pretty tiny one. But it has
the potential for some real problems. Think about the self-employed
computer programmer who earns $80,000 a year.
This computer programmer would have to calculate their estimated tax
themselves and make quarterly payments to the government. If that
computer operator misses that new three one-thousandths of 1 percent
increase in withholding and underwithholds by as little as 6 cents per
month, that person is subject to the Internal Revenue Service
prosecuting them and seeking interest and penalties as if they were
trying to evade paying their income taxes.
Basically, I concluded that if the government is going to require
that they are going to take money that they say you could potentially
get back from this, it is a tax increase, because if the government
holds money that is mine, no matter how small it is, and I am not
getting interest on that money, that, to me, is a tax increase. That is
exactly what we are going to be doing when any Member votes to pass
this rule that allows us to proceed in this matter.
I don't understand why it is that we are here. It is, to me, a very,
very unfortunate thing. We now see how the Democrats intend to close
the so-called tax gap, and it's on the backs of the average taxpayer in
this country, and it is just plain wrong.
I urge a ``no'' vote on this rule. If, by chance, we pass this rule,
which, from my perspective, self-executes a tax increase on the average
hard-working taxpayer in this country, I urge a ``no'' vote on the bill
itself.
One of the most ridiculous aspects of this rule is the mechanism used
to pay for the mandatory spending in this bill.
The bill provides for a new Member of Congress, and as a
constitutional officer, that Member's salary is a mandatory expense.
Under the PAYGO rules adopted by the House, those costs must be
offset.
The offset self-executed into the bill by the rule raises the
requirement for income tax withholding by three one-thousandths of a
percent.
What does that mean to the average taxpayer? Well, for a married
couple who both happen to be firefighters earning $80,000 a year, their
interest-free loan to the government just went up by about $1.60.
That's right, $1.60. But they do have to send approximately 13 cents
per month more to the government to pay for a new congressional seat.
That's not the worst part, though. Take the self-employed computer
programmer who earns $80,000 per year. She has to calculate her
estimated tax herself and make quarterly payments to the government.
If she misses that new .003 percent increase in withholding, and
under-withholds by as little as 6 cents per month she is subject to the
IRS prosecuting her and seeking interest and penalties as if she were
trying to evade paying her taxes.
Mr. Speaker, we now see how the Democrats intend to close the so-
called ``tax gap''--on the backs of average taxpayers, all to pay
another Member of Congress.

{time} 1100

Mr. ARCURI. I thank the gentleman from California, my colleague from
the Rules Committee. And he points out that, yes, I think a legitimate
question, how are we going to pay for this? I can't help but think that
when it comes to giving people freedom and the right to vote, we must
find a way to pay for it. In fact, we have spent $400 billion
attempting to give the people in Iraq freedom and the right to vote.
And if we can spend $400 billion in Iraq, then we can spend some money
here to give the 600,000 people here in the District of Columbia the
right to vote.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ARCURI. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DREIER. I thank my friend for yielding. I would simply argue,
based on the point that has been made by that great expert Mr. Turley,
we need to look at amending the U.S. Constitution before we go down
that road. And we also have to look at how it is we are going to pay
for this. Are we going to pay for it by basically imposing a tax on the
average taxpaying citizen of this country by withholding dollars of
theirs? I just think it is plain wrong.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ARCURI. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Let me just ask my friend from California,
what about the constitutional expert

[[Page H2830]]

Ken Starr who has testified under oath that this is constitutional; or
Viet Dinh, who was a chief counsel in the Justice Department under
President Bush; and John Ashcroft, who wrote the PATRIOT Act and has
written an opinion that this is constitutional? Aren't their views
worth consideration as well?
Mr. DREIER. Would the gentleman yield so I can respond to my friend?
Mr. ARCURI. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DREIER. Absolutely. And I will tell you that when the
distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee last night began his
testimony before the Rules Committee, he quoted both Kenneth Starr, and
frankly I will say that it was with a great deal of pain and it was
precedent-setting that our distinguished Judiciary Committee chairman
Mr. Conyers and he said this, quoted for the first time, and I suspect
maybe the last, Kenneth Starr, and he went on to refer to the fact that
Viet Dinh had clearly concluded this.
There are conflicting views as to the constitutionality of this. I
recognize that. And, in fact, Mr. Sensenbrenner, when he was addressing
the Rules Committee last night, said that he believed that this was a
50/50 call.
I think that there are a lot of different opinions on it. Jonathan
Turley is one that has spent a great deal of time looking at this, and
I just happen to think that he is right. And the way I read the
Constitution, that is the way I see it.
Mr. ARCURI. I would just like to point out that the gentleman from
California says that he is not clearly not an expert on the
Constitution, but I think he has a much better understanding of the
Constitution than he admits.
You sound like you are strictly attempting to interpret the
Constitution, a strict constructionalist. And that being the case, I
think it is clear, a close reading of the Constitution gives Congress
under Article I, section 8 exclusive legislation over all aspects of
the District. So I think that it is clear in a strict reading of the
Constitution that Congress has this ability.
Mr. DREIER. If the gentleman would yield to me for a moment. I thank
my friend for yielding, and I really do appreciate him, and he is my
new friend on the Rules Committee.
Mr. Speaker, I would simply say that it is Article I, section 2, to
which I point where it refers to the fact that this body, according to
the Constitution, is to become comprised of Members elected from the
several States. And that is why I argue that if, in fact, we are going
to do this, we should look at a way in which the District of Columbia
becomes a State so that it can, in fact, comply with the Constitution.
Mr. ARCURI. I just would point out what I stated earlier. In the
Tidewater case, the Supreme Court upheld the ability of Congress to
designate the District of Columbia, for purposes of diversity
jurisdiction, as a special creature, as not a State, but standing in
certain respects in the same way that a State does. I think it is
clearly within the power of Congress to do this, and I yield.
Mr. DREIER. Again, this description of the District of Columbia as a
special entity is absolutely right. That is what the Framers of our
Constitution wanted to do in establishing the District of Columbia to
ensure that it is not a State. That is the uniqueness of the District
of Columbia. And I am arguing that if, in fact, we need to make this
change so that it complies with Article I, section 2, it seems to me
there needs to be a modification to the Constitution.
Mr. ARCURI. Reclaiming my time. And I think I just have to answer
that by saying if you look at historically why Congress actually
created the District, it was so that it would have jurisdiction over
the area which it sat, not for the reason that you indicate.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 3
minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).
Mrs. MILLER of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose the
rule, and as well as I am in opposition of the underlying bill that we
are considering today, and I do so because I am a strict
constructionist. I am a believer and I am a defender of the
Constitution. In fact, when I came to Congress, like all of us did, I
took an oath to uphold the Constitution, and I intend to do so. And I
believe that what the House is considering passing today in this
legislation is simply unconstitutional.
Let me just say, I am not against the citizens of the District of
Columbia having the right to vote for a Member of the House of
Representatives. In fact, before I came to Congress, I had the
privilege and pleasure to serve as the Michigan secretary of state for
8 years, and that is the chief elections officer in my State, and a
principal advocacy of mine then as it is now was registering as many
citizens who were eligible to vote, and then trying to get as many who
were registered to actually participate in the elections process.
However, under the Constitution of the United States, it explicitly
declares that representation in Congress can only be granted to States.
Article I, section 2 states clearly that: Representatives shall be
apportioned among several States.
Interestingly enough, even the District of Columbia recently argued
that it was not a State and shouldn't be treated like one. And I am
referring to the recent District Court of Appeals case about the long-
time D.C. gun ban when the District argued that the second amendment
did not apply to them because they are not a State. And I am not sure
if the District actually believes that other parts of the Constitution
don't apply to them for the same reasons. For instance, they might
think that the first amendment doesn't apply to them. I am not sure.
But, Mr. Speaker, the Constitution applies to every American wherever
you live, the first amendment, the second amendment, and the section
that precludes the District from having a vote in this Chamber.
And if we are going to sacrifice the Constitution on the altar of
politics, why are we stopping with just giving D.C. a vote in the
House? Why not give them two Senators like every other State has? How
about a Governor? A statehouse? A State senate as well as all the other
constitutional officers that other States have, like the attorney
general or secretary of state or whatever?
Also, by trying to buy a few votes by saying that we will expand the
membership of this Chamber by giving D.C. one Member and Utah one
Member so that we will hopefully have one Democratic vote or one
Republican vote; since we are being completely political and arbitrary,
how about just one vote for the District, and then give whatever Member
has the most Republican district in the Nation, give them two votes?
Mr. Speaker, I cannot vote for a bill that clearly violates the
Constitution. It will never be upheld by the courts. The District
should either go back to being a part of the State of Maryland, as they
were at our Nation's founding, or we should amend the Constitution.
Asking Members to vote to violate our Nation's Constitution, I believe,
is absolutely the wrong approach. I would urge a ``no'' vote on this
rule and a ``no'' vote on the underlying bill.
Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time we have
remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York has 16 minutes,
and the gentleman from Texas has 6 minutes.
Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia, Mr. Davis.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Let me just say, a strict reading of the
Constitution, if you look just at its face, if you read that, D.C.
residents wouldn't have a right to a jury trial because that is only to
residents of States. D.C. residents would have no right to sue non-D.C.
residents in Federal courts under diversity jurisdiction, which is
reserved to residents of States. The full faith and credit clause
wouldn't apply to D.C. under the Constitution, because that only
applies to States. But Congress, under the District clause, has allowed
the District to be treated as a State for those purposes.
The previous speaker says, well, if they can do this, why can't they
be treated as a State for other purposes? The city argued under the gun
ban that they weren't a State because Congress hadn't specifically said
they were a

[[Page H2831]]

State, but the District clause is all-inclusive and gives Congress the
power to determine what the rights are. We have that right. It is not
an inherent right to vote in the House of Representatives, but we have
that right under the District clause.
The difference between the House and the Senate in the constitutional
reading is the Senate represents States. Individuals represent States,
and each State gets two Senators. And the District of Columbia is
clearly not a State. But the House of Representatives is of the people
among the several States, a different wording. In fact, at the time the
Constitution was created, the people in the District were among the
several States, and, in fact, the residents of what are now the
District voted for Congress the first 12 years of the Republic.
But this is not a right that goes to the District of Columbia. This
is a right that goes to the people of the District of Columbia, and
Congress has the right to determine whether they have it or not. This
was taken up in 1800 when the anti-Federalists won the Presidency by
one electoral vote, if you remember, and in a lame duck session this
was debated, and, as usually happens, they punted it to the succeeding
Congresses.
I think the constitutionality of this thing is very, very clear that,
under the District clause, we have the ability in Congress to determine
if they get a vote in the House or not. And I just want to set the
record straight on that. All of these other rights, jury trial, right
to sue, full faith and credit, even the Federal Government would not be
allowed to impose Federal taxes in the District under a strict reading
of the Constitution. But under law and under the District clause, we
have expanded it to the District. I just think the record should
reflect that.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to inquire of
the gentleman from New York if, due to the imbalance of time, if he
would like to perhaps have some more of his speakers. If so, I would
reserve the balance of my time if he chose to go that direction.
Mr. ARCURI. Yes, Mr. Speaker. I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman
from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
Ms. NORTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding, Mr. Speaker. And I
really had not intended to come forward since I will be managing in a
few minutes but I must say that I have been virtually driven to the
floor by the abstractions of the discussion. I want to thank the
gentleman from Virginia.
Would the gentleman from Virginia engage in a colloquy with me?
I will have more to say about the specific legal and constitutional
issues, but I do want to say something to those who are such
literalists that they would deny us of the right to vote citing the
Framers and the Constitution. Is it not true that the State of Virginia
and perhaps as many as half the Colonies were not States, but
Commonwealths? And is ``Commonwealth'' mentioned anywhere in the
Constitution?
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. That is correct in the case of Virginia,
if the gentlelady would allow me.
Ms. NORTON. I yield to the gentleman.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. The District of Columbia portion that came
from Virginia went back to Virginia in 1846. And I think it is
important for Members to understand the reason for the Virginia section
of the District petitioned to go back to Virginia was because they were
afraid that Congress was going to enact a ban on slaveholding in the
District.
Ms. NORTON. I thank the gentleman. And the gentleman has clarified
something further concerning the right to vote in the people's House.
The reason I come is not, frankly, to engage early in the discussion
we will be having on the bill itself; but because the discussion has
been such an abstraction. I have come because that discussion has been
as if the Framers set up a place, not a city with real people. It is as
if you can discuss these rights without referring to whom these rights
would belong.
Members have come to the floor with the hubris to believe that the
Framers intended their constituents to have full rights under the
Constitution, but not my constituents because we happen to live in the
Capital of the United States created by the Framers.
I do want to let you know who you are talking about so that this
discussion will not be all about constitutional and legal abstractions
that can only be settled by the courts of the United States. You are
talking about Kathryn Ray, who lives here and is a mom and a librarian
and a PTA president. You are talking about Larry Chapman, who is a D.C.
firefighter, putting his life on the line for emergency response here
and throughout the city. You are talking about Liz Allen, an attorney
who has had her first child and has decided to raise this son here in
the District of Columbia even though her family is denied a vote.

{time} 1115

You are talking about Wade Henderson, like me a native Washingtonian,
president of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, who has fought
every day for civil rights around the world but has never had a vote in
Congress. Like me, he is an African American who grew up in this city
when it was a segregated city. Like me, he understood that the
composition of this city then and for centuries has had much to do with
the denial of voting rights in this city. And so, like me, he has
argued in these Halls that all citizens of the District of Columbia, of
every background, finally have the rights that all other Americans now
take for granted.
This bill is about Evelyn Curtis, a nurse at one of our hospitals,
who would love to have a say on health care issues. She can talk to me,
but I can't talk to you about what she believes by voting.
This bill is ultimately about 650,000 American citizens. When you are
asked to vote on this bill in the middle of a war, when our citizens
are among the troops on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan, remember
that you will be voting not for my vote but for the votes of the people
who live in the District of Columbia and especially for the votes of
those Washingtonians who as I speak are serving in Iraq, Afghanistan
and throughout the world in service to the United States of America.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).
Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentleman from Texas for yielding and
to have an opportunity to address this issue.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and the underlying
bill. The first premise is that we all stand here on the floor of this
Congress and take an oath to uphold the Constitution. Even the
strongest advocates for this bill before the hearing in the Judiciary
Committee testified that if we believe that a bill is unconstitutional
before us, we are obligated to uphold our oath and vote ``no''
regardless of how much we might support the underlying policy. That is
the stand that I take on this issue, Mr. Speaker.
I would declare this to be the first round, one step along the way in
the D.C. statehood bill. But the discussion that has been here on the
floor and the exchange and the colloquy with Mr. Dreier on Article I,
section 2, article I, section 3 and then the reference was brought up
also of article I, section 8, to address those, it works just like
this: Article I, section 2 reads: ``The House of Representatives shall
be composed of Members chosen every second year by the people of the
several States.''
Now, if D.C. is not a State, we can't have Members that come from
places that are not States. It's a pretty simple analysis here. Read
the Constitution. It also says in the bill that this doesn't include
Senators. That was an amendment that was offered by the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland). Statutory provisions aren't constitutional
restraints. By the same rationale, and I mean exactly the same
rationale that you can come to a conclusion that there could be a
Member in this Congress that votes in full representation for D.C., you
have to also conclude that there is a constitutional provision for two
Senators as well, because I will argue that Article I, section 3, after
the 17th amendment is applied to it reads this way: ``The Senate of the
United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State elected
by the people thereof.'' So the only

[[Page H2832]]

distinction between a District Representative, a Member in the House,
and two Senators is the phrase ``by the people of the several States''
as applied to the Member and ``elected by the people thereof'' as
applied to the Senators.
This is imperative and compelling. So if you accept a Member here
constitutionally, you also accept two Senators here by the same
constitutional rationale.
Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I would agree with the gentleman that if
something is unconstitutional, certainly I would not support it, but I
believe that this bill is constitutional, and I believe again Article
I, section 8 makes it constitutional for Congress to pass this
legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I now yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms.
Jackson-Lee).
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Let me first of all add my appreciation to
Congressman Tom Davis; maybe the constitutional teachers at the
University of Virginia law school are owed a debt of gratitude as well;
and, of course, the gentlelady who has persisted throughout her, I
think, legal and legislative career, the Honorable Congresswoman
Eleanor Holmes Norton.
This is a historic moment and an historic day. I think the crucial-
ness of this debate should not be lost on the American people. I rise
to support this rule, this structured rule, that allows an amendment by
Mr. Waxman and Mr. Conyers, and I would like to give comfort to those
on the other side of the aisle to read their Constitution and explore
even some of the Supreme Court cases that document that the District of
Columbia under Supreme Court law has been held as a State in certain
purposes.
Now, what is lost in this debate is that this is not a singular
legislative act that excludes a balance. Out of this provision comes a
seat for the State of Utah, which has requested a seat for many, many
years. Just recently, we added a seat for North Carolina so that
citizens of the United States could vote. So it is being defined by my
opponents on the other side, this rule that it is unconstitutional
because they are not giving you the whole story. This, because of
population concerns, adds a seat to Utah. But, more importantly, this
is a constitutional approach. They are right. Article I, section 2
indicates that the House of Representatives shall be composed of
Members from every State. But then there is an enunciation of the
powers of Congress that goes under section 8, clause 17, that ``the
Congress has the power to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases
whatever over such district that has been established as the capital of
the United States.'' The Congress has all power.
Now, let me say this. We are not all powerful. We represent the
people of the United States. But would you ask the question as we are
debating soon the crisis in Iraq, where the policies of this Nation
have been to export democracy, create an opportunity for those citizens
of Iraq to vest in their country, to vote for their leadership, does it
make any sense for individuals paying taxes, who are on the front lines
of Iraq, Afghanistan, World War I, World War II, the Vietnam War, the
Korean conflict, and any conflict around the world, to be denied the
right to vote if the Constitution gives us the authority to do so?
I commend the Constitution to my colleagues. I might say that we
welcome the distinguished gentleman from Iowa's amendment to work with
Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton to get Senate provisions, if he
desires to do so. It seems like he was concerned that the other body
was not represented. But when we debate this question as we will soon,
let us have the facts. You cannot quote one part, as one would say in
the church, of the Bible and exclude the other part. You can't quote
one part of the Constitution and ignore the powers of this Congress
that has a right to exercise authority over the District of Columbia.
I think the other question that should be asked and answered, who
will it harm? Who will be hurt by recognizing the voting rights of
people that are here in the United States paying taxes and shedding
their blood? Who would argue against the place that thousands and
millions of Americans come as their capital that they love, and they
leave behind those who care for and take care of this capital, the
residents of the District of Columbia, and they leave them with no
right to vote.
So I believe that this rule is the right rule. I have disagreed with
rules, both Republican and, frankly, Democratic rules. Later today I
will disagree with the rule that will be put forward. But frankly I
think this rule that is structured makes a great deal of difference and
it is important that we make sure that we abide by this book and we
read it consistently with its language and that is to say that Congress
has the power to move forward.
I would ask my colleagues to be reminded that there are citizens in
this country that cannot vote, and I hope that you will view the work
of the Congress as it is constitutional and right to give those
citizens the right to vote, for they too are Americans.
I ask my colleagues to support the rule.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Davis.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. I thank my friend for yielding.
We have Republicans quoting liberal professors and Democrats quoting
conservative professors in support of where they are. At the end of the
day I believe that if the District were a Republican enclave, our side
would be getting up screaming for voting rights and the other side
would be saying, no, the Constitution is strict. We are trying to take
the politics out of this.
In the last Congress, both committees with jurisdiction under
Republican chairmen cleared this bill for the floor and the Republican
leadership denied it an opportunity to come to the floor. We could have
had a full and open debate at that point. I think it would have been
helpful to the process. Now the Democrats are in control and they are
bringing this up, not for a full and open debate, unfortunately, but
under a closed rule. We should have an open rule on this. At the time
when we are spending billions of dollars and sacrificing thousands of
lives to bring democracy to Baghdad, to Afghanistan and around the
world, shouldn't we look right next door to our friends and neighbors
here in the Nation's capital and give them the essence of democracy,
the right to vote here on the floor of the House of Representatives? I
think we should.
There are different views as to how we should do this. The former
chairman of the Judiciary Committee says it's constitutional, but
doesn't like the at-large aspect of the Utah seat but we are not able
to debate that on the floor today. My friend from California (Mr.
Rohrabacher) who has long been a champion of voting rights here has a
different mechanism under which this could be established.
I wish we could have a full and open debate on this. I think it would
be helpful to the process. And I am really torn. Because on the one
hand our side doesn't want the bill to come up at all, and the other
side wants this to come up under very closed rules where we can't have
full and open debate. I look forward to a spirited colloquy as we move
through this. I am going to support the bill in its final form, of
course, as it moves through because I think this is something that is
long overdue for citizens of the Nation's capital and with a long line
of legal precedents which treats the District of Columbia like a State
when Congress says it can be treated like a State. Things like the
right to trial by jury, paying Federal taxes, other issues that apply
only to States under the Constitution but which under the District
clause to the Constitution when we apply it to the District, it is
treated like a State.
And once again, looking at such conservative jurists as Ken Starr,
Viet Dinh who wrote the PATRIOT Act for the Bush administration
testified under oath as to its constitutionality. This shouldn't
ultimately be locked up in this. This should be about basic voting
rights for the capital of the Free World.
Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York has 3 minutes.
The gentleman from Texas has 2 minutes.
Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page H2833]]

Mr. SESSIONS. I thank the gentleman for inquiring. I would like to
save my 2 minutes for my close and would like to ask if the gentleman
would allow me 1 additional minute for a speaker that I have.
Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).
Ms. NORTON. I just want to say, I will not object. I will not object,
out of the sense of fairness that I hope that every Member will bring
with them to the floor when the time comes to vote on this bill. I will
not object, because Mr. Rohrabacher, who may disagree with my bill, has
at least understood that the Republic will not go on as long as the
residents of the Nation's capital are denied a vote in the Congress and
has himself introduced his own version of a voting rights bill.
Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, this is all about fairness. And in the
spirit of fairness that the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia
(Ms. Norton) talks about, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Sessions) for debate only.

{time} 1130

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the
time, and I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Rohrabacher).
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Speaker, my friend was very correct when she
said we should all be concerned about the rights of the people who live
here in the District of Columbia, the fact that they have taxation
without representation and then lack the voting rights other people do.
However, what is being offered today is clearly unconstitutional. If we
just go through this whole procedure and it gets thrown out by the
Court, what have we accomplished?
There is an alternative. Unfortunately, that substitute was not made
in order. There is an alternative which would give the people in this
State not only the right to vote for a Representative in the House, but
for a Senator and 11 congressional electors as well. The substitute,
which would be constitutional, simply grants the citizens of the
District of Columbia their State citizenship rights in Maryland, which
is what happened in Virginia, of course, in the past, 100 years ago. My
substitute would give the people of this city the right to vote for two
Senators as well as a Representative as well as electors, and yet this
was not permitted to come to the House here today. It is a substitute,
and we were not allowed to vote on it here or to even consider it.
I would say there are some political considerations that have limited
this debate at the expense of the people of this city. I would like to
place in the Record a further description of the substitute legislation
that I have in mind. And I would suggest that what we do is get
politics out of this. Let us give these people a right not only to vote
for a Representative, here but for two Senators. We have it within our
ability to do that.

The Rohrabacher substitute, essentially the text of H.R.
492, restores the full House, Senate, and Electoral College
voting rights enjoyed by residents of the District of
Columbia as citizens of Maryland from creation of the
District in 1790 to the enactment of the Organic Act of 1801.
By restoring the state citizenship rights of D.C. residents
to vote for, run for, and serve as U.S. Representatives and
Senators, the Rohrabacher substitute complies with the
literal reading of Sections 2 and 3 of Article I of the
Constitution requiring that Representatives and Senators come
from states.
Like the base bill, the Rohrabacher substitute adds an
additional Representative for the next state in line in the
2000 census (i.e., Utah), and permanently increases the
membership of the House of Representatives to 437. The bill
provides an additional Representative for Maryland, which for
census purposes will include the population of the District
of Columbia. Until redistricting is accomplished, D.C. would
constitute the additional Maryland district by itself. When
Maryland redistricts its congressional districts, its
districts would have to be equal in population, but the
District of Columbia could not be divided into more than one
congressional district. Federal elections in D.C. would be
conducted pursuant to Maryland election law, with the D.C.
government treated as a local jurisdiction in Maryland for
this purpose.
To avoid double counting in the Electoral College, the
substitute exercises Congress's powers in both sections of
the 23rd Amendment to provide that the D.C.'s own
presidential electors not be appointed or cast votes. The
bill would take effect with the 2008 election, with the new
Representatives from Maryland and Utah taking office at the
beginning of the 111th Congress, at which point the offices
of D.C. delegate and D.C.'s shadow Representative and
Senators would be abolished. Utah would be required to hold
its 2008 and 2010 congressional elections in accordance with
the four-district plan the state adopted in 2006.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to, before I really begin,
extend my thanks to the Members of Congress, including Mr. Arcuri, who
has taken time and been very gracious in his professional nature today
on the floor, as well as the other Members who have been here, and I
want to thank them for working together with us.
Mr. Speaker, I will be urging Members to oppose the previous question
so that I may offer an amendment to the rule which would make in order
the constitutional amendment offered by Representative Dana
Rohrabacher, as described today, which was presented to the Rules
Committee last night. At a minimum the House should be allowed to vote
and debate on a practical, legal alternative.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members to reject the previous question. If
the previous question is agreed to, I urge Members to reject the closed
rule and the unconstitutional underlying measure.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert into the Record the
amendment and extraneous material just prior to the vote on the
previous question.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, the nearly 600,000 citizens of Washington
D.C. have waited far too long for equal representation in this Chamber.
They have sacrificed their lives defending this great Nation, paid
their fair share in taxes, and helped to build and run this great
Nation.
We have an opportunity to correct this grave injustice and provide
the citizens of our Nation's capital with the most important right of
all, and that is, of course, the right to vote.
I want to commend the Delegate from Washington, D.C., for her
tireless efforts that have brought us together on this historic day. It
is that type of passion and commitment that further strengthens our
democracy.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and on the previous question.
The material previously referred to by Mr. Sessions is as follows:

Amendment to H. Res. 260 Offered by Rep. Sessions of Texas

At the end of the resolution, add the following:
Sec. 3. Notwithstanding any other provision of this
resolution, after conclusion of the time for debate on the
bill it shall be in order without intervention of any point
of order to consider the amendment in section 3, if offered
by Mr. Rohrabacher of California or his designee. The
amendment shall be considered as read, shall be separately
debatable for one hour equally divided and controlled by the
proponent and an opponent, and shall not be subject to
amendment or demand for division of the question.
Sec. 4. The amendment referred to in section 3 is as
follows:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``District of Columbia Voting
Rights Restoration Act of 2007''.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

The Congress finds the following:
(1) There is no reason, either historically or by virtue of
law, why the people of the District of Columbia, the capital
of the United States of America, should not have full voting
representation in the Congress of the United States.
(2) Article I, section 8, clause 17 of the Constitution of
the United States, which authorized the creation of the
District of Columbia, provides only that the Congress shall
have ``exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever'' over
that District.
(3) The same clause of the Constitution provides that
Congress ``shall exercise like authority over'' other Federal
territories that have been purchased from the States for
Federal purposes. Residents of other Federal enclaves, though
also denied voting rights after becoming subject to exclusive
Federal jurisdiction, have had restored their right to vote
for and serve as elected Federal officials from their
respective States which ceded the Federal enclaves to the
United States.
(4) Congress has exercised its authority to regulate
Federal elections under article I, section 4 of the
Constitution to set the legal requirements that States must
follow in establishing Congressional districts. Congress

[[Page H2834]]

has also exercised this authority to require States to allow
United States citizens who are former residents, and their
children who are United States citizens, who are living
overseas to vote in Federal elections in the previous State
of residence, notwithstanding the fact that such former
residents and their children may have no intention of
returning or establishing residence in that State, and
notwithstanding the fact that such citizens are not subject
to the laws of that State, including tax laws.
(5) The entire territory of the current District of
Columbia was ceded to the United States by the State of
Maryland, one of the original 13 States of the United States.
The portion of the original District of Columbia ceded to the
United States by the Commonwealth of Virginia was returned to
the authority of that state in 1846, and the people who now
reside in that area vote as citizens of the Commonwealth of
Virginia.
(6) The Supreme Court of the United States has found that
the cession of legislative authority over the territory that
became the District of Columbia by the States of Maryland and
Virginia did not remove that territory from the United
States, and that the people who live in that territory are
entitled to all the rights, guarantees, and immunities of the
Constitution that they formerly enjoyed as citizens of those
States. O'Donoghue v. United States, 289 U.S. 516 (1933);
Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244 (1901). Among those
guarantees are the right to equal protection of the laws and
the right to participate, equally with other Americans, in a
Republican form of government.
(7) Since the people who lived in the territory that now
makes up the District of Columbia once voted in Maryland as
citizens of Maryland, and Congress by adoption of the Organic
Act of 1801 severed the political connection between Maryland
and the District of Columbia by statute, Congress has the
power by statute to restore Maryland state citizenship
rights, including Federal electoral rights, that it took away
by enacting the Organic Act of 1801.

SEC. 3. RESTORATION OF RIGHT OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
RESIDENTS TO PARTICIPATE AS MARYLAND RESIDENTS
IN CONGRESSIONAL ELECTIONS.

(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, for purposes of representation in the House of
Representatives and Senate, the right of the people of the
District of Columbia to be eligible to participate in
elections for the House of Representatives and Senate as
Maryland residents in accordance with the laws of the State
of Maryland, is hereby restored.
(b) Eligibility To Hold Congressional Office.--
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for purposes of
determining eligibility to serve as a Member of the House of
Representatives or Senate, the right of the residents of the
District of Columbia to be considered inhabitants of the
State of Maryland is hereby restored.
(c) Effective Date.--This section shall apply with respect
to elections for Federal office occurring during 2008 and any
succeeding year.

SEC. 4. RESTORATION OF RIGHT OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
RESIDENTS TO PARTICIPATE AS MARYLAND RESIDENTS
IN PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS.

(a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
law, the right of the people of the District of Columbia to
be eligible to participate in elections for electors of
President and Vice President, and to serve as such electors
as Maryland residents in accordance with the laws of the
State of Maryland, is hereby restored.
(b) Eligibility To Serve as Electors.--Notwithstanding any
other provision of law, for purposes of determining
eligibility to serve as electors of President and Vice
President, the right of the residents of the District of
Columbia to be considered inhabitants of the State of
Maryland is hereby restored.
(c) Termination of Appointment of Separate Electors by
District of Columbia.--In accordance with the authority under
sections 1 and 2 of the 23rd amendment to the Constitution
and the authority under article I, Section 8, to legislate
for the District of Columbia, and notwithstanding any other
provision of law, Congress directs that no electors of
President and Vice President shall be appointed by the
District of Columbia and that no votes from such electors
shall be cast or counted in the electoral vote for President
and Vice President.
(d) Conforming Amendment.--
(1) In general.--Chapter 1 of title 3, United States Code,
is amended by striking section 21.
(2) Clerical amendment.--The table of sections for chapter
1 of title 3, United States Code, is amended by striking the
item relating to section 21.

SEC. 5. COMPOSITION OF HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

(a) Number and Apportionment of Maryland Members.--For
purposes of determining the number and apportionment of the
members of the House of Representatives from the State of
Maryland for the One Hundred Eleventh Congress and each
succeeding Congress, the population of the District of
Columbia shall be added to the population of Maryland under
the decennial census.
(b) Increase in Membership of House of Representatives.--
(1) Permanent increase in number of members.--Effective
with respect to the One Hundred Eleventh Congress and each
succeeding Congress, the House of Representatives shall be
composed of 437 Members.
(2) Reapportionment of members resulting from increase.--
(A) In general.--Section 22(a) of the Act entitled ``An Act
to provide for the fifteenth and subsequent decennial
censuses and to provide for apportionment of Representatives
in Congress'', approved June 28, 1929 (2 U.S.C. 2a(a)), is
amended by striking ``the then existing number of
Representatives'' and inserting ``the number of
Representatives established with respect to the One Hundred
Eleventh Congress''.
(B) Effective date.--The amendment made by subparagraph (A)
shall apply with respect to the regular decennial census
conducted for 2010 and each subsequent regular decennial
census.
(c) Revision of Apportionment Prior to Next Census.--
(1) Transmittal of revised apportionment information by
president and clerk.--
(A) Statement of apportionment by president.--Not later
than 30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the
President shall transmit to Congress a revised version of the
most recent statement of apportionment submitted under
section 22(a) of the Act entitled ``An Act to provide for the
fifteenth and subsequent decennial censuses and to provide
for apportionment of Representatives in Congress'', approved
June 28, 1929 (2 U.S.C. 2a(a)), to take into account this
section and the amendments made by this section.
(B) Report by clerk.-- Not later than 15 calendar days
after receiving the revised version of the statement of
apportionment under subparagraph (A), the Clerk of the House
of Representatives, in accordance with section 22(b) of such
Act (2 U.S.C. 2a(b)), shall send to the executive of the
State (other than the State of Maryland) entitled to one
additional Representative pursuant to this section a
certificate of the number of Representatives to which such
State is entitled under section 22 of such Act, and shall
submit a report identifying that State to the Speaker of the
House of Representatives.
(2) Composition of congressional districts for affected
state.--Until the taking effect of the first reapportionment
occurring after the regular decennial census conducted for
2010, the Congressional districts of the State identified by
the Clerk of the House of Representatives in the report
submitted under paragraph (1) shall be those districts
established under a law enacted by the State during 2006
(without regard to any amendments made to such law after
2006) which established Congressional districts for the State
but which did not take effect because the number of districts
provided under the law was greater than the number of
districts to which the State was finally entitled after the
regular decennial census for 2000.
(d) Prohibiting Division of District of Columbia Into
Separate Congressional Districts.--
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding subsection (a), in
establishing Congressional districts after the effective date
of this section, the State of Maryland shall ensure that the
entire area of the District of Columbia is included in the
same Congressional district (except as provided in paragraph
(2)).
(2) Special rule if population of district equals or
exceeds average population of maryland congressional
districts.--If the population of the District of Columbia
equals or exceeds the average population of a Congressional
district in the State of Maryland under the decennial census
used for the apportionment of the Members of the House of
Representatives from the State of Maryland, the State of
Maryland shall ensure that at least one Congressional
district in the State consists exclusively of territory
within the District of Columbia.
(3) Special rule for initial district.--Until the State of
Maryland establishes Congressional districts to take into
account the enactment of this section, the Congressional
district of the additional Representative to which the State
is entitled under this section shall consist exclusively of
the area of the District of Columbia.

SEC. 6. COORDINATION OF ELECTION ADMINISTRATION.

(a) Application of Maryland Election Laws.--
(1) In general.--Federal elections in the District of
Columbia shall be administered and carried out by the State
of Maryland, in accordance with the applicable laws of the
State of Maryland.
(2) Treatment of district as unit of local government.--For
purposes of the laws of the State of Maryland which apply to
Federal elections in the District of Columbia pursuant to
paragraph (1), the District of Columbia shall be considered
to be a unit of local government within the State of Maryland
with responsibility for the administration of Federal
elections.
(b) Treatment of District of Columbia as Part of Maryland
Under Help America Vote Act of 2002.--Section 901 of the Help
America Vote Act of 2002 (42 U.S.C. 15541) is amended--
(1) by striking ``the District of Columbia'';
(2) by striking ``In this Act'' and inserting ``(a) In
General._In this Act''; and
(3) by adding at the end the following new subsection:
``(b) Special Rule For State of Maryland and District of
Columbia.--For purposes of this Act, the following shall
apply:
``(1) The voting age population of the State of Maryland
shall be considered to include the voting age population of
the District of

[[Page H2835]]

Columbia for purposes of sections 101(d)(4) and 252(b).
``(2) The District of Columbia shall be considered a unit
of local government or jurisdiction located within the State
of Maryland.
``(3) An election for Federal office taking place in the
District of Columbia shall be considered to take place in the
State of Maryland.''.
(c) Conforming Amendments to Other Federal Election Laws.--
(1) Uniformed and overseas citizens absentee voting act.--
(A) In general.--Title I of the Uniformed and Overseas
Citizens Absentee Voting Act (42 U.S.C. 1973ff et seq.) is
amended by adding at the end the following new section:

``SEC. 108. SPECIAL RULE FOR STATE OF MARYLAND AND DISTRICT
OF COLUMBIA.

``For purposes of this title, the following shall apply:
``(1) An absent uniformed services voter or overseas voter
who is a resident of the District of Columbia shall be
considered to be a resident of the State of Maryland.
``(2) An election for Federal office taking place in the
District of Columbia shall be considered to take place in the
State of Maryland.
``(3) The State of Maryland, and the election officials of
the State of Maryland, shall be responsible for carrying out
the provisions of this title with respect to voters who are
residents of the District of Columbia.''.
(B) Conforming amendment.--Section 107(6) of the Uniformed
and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act (42 U.S.C. 1973ff--
6) is amended by striking ``the District of Columbia,''.
(2) National voter registration act of 1973.--
(A) In general.--The National Voter Registration Act of
1973 (42 U.S.C. 1973gg et seq.) is amended--
(i) by redesignating section 13 as section 14; and
(ii) by adding at the end the following new section:

``SEC. 12. SPECIAL RULE FOR STATE OF MARYLAND AND DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA.

``For purposes of this Act, the following shall apply:
``(1) The District of Columbia shall be considered a
registrar's jurisdiction within the State of Maryland.
``(2) An election for Federal office taking place in the
District of Columbia shall be considered to take place in the
State of Maryland.
``(3) The State of Maryland, and the election officials of
the State of Maryland, shall be responsible for carrying out
this Act with respect to the District of Columbia, except
that--
``(A) section 5 shall apply to motor vehicle driver's
license applications and the motor vehicle authority of the
District of Columbia in the same manner as that section
applies to a State, and the State of Maryland shall provide
the District of Columbia with such forms and other materials
as the District of Columbia may require to carry out that
section; and
``(B) the District of Columbia shall designate voter
registration agencies under section 7 in the same manner as a
State, and the State of Maryland shall provide the District
of Columbia with such forms and other materials as the
District of Columbia may require to carry out that
section.''.
(B) Conforming amendment.--Section 3(4) of such Act (42
U.S.C. gg--1(4)) is amended by striking ``and the District of
Columbia''.
(3) Voting accessibility for the elderly and handicapped
act.--
(A) In general.--The Voting Accessibility for the Elderly
and Handicapped Act (42 U.S.C. 1973ee et seq.) is amended--
(i) by redesignating section 8 as section 9; and
(ii) by inserting after section 7 the following new
section:

``SPECIAL RULE FOR STATE OF MARYLAND AND DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

``Sec. 8. For purposes of this Act, the following shall
apply:
``(1) The District of Columbia shall be considered a
political subdivision of the State of Maryland.
``(2) An election for Federal office taking place in the
District of Columbia shall be considered to take place in the
State of Maryland.
``(3) The State of Maryland shall be responsible for
carrying out this Act with respect to the District of
Columbia.''.
(B) Conforming amendment.--Section 8(5) of such Act (42
U.S.C. 1973ee--6(5)) is amended by striking ``the District of
Columbia,''.
(d) Conforming Amendment to Home Rule Act.--Section 752 of
the District of Columbia Home Rule Act (sec. 1--207.52, D.C.
Official Code) is amended by striking the period at the end
and inserting the following: ``, except to the extent
required under section 5 of the District of Columbia Voting
Rights Restoration Act of 2007.''.
(e) Other Conforming Amendment to District of Columbia
Election Law.--The District of Columbia Elections Code of
1955 is amended by adding at the end the following new
section:

``SEC. 18. APPLICABILITY OF MARYLAND ELECTION LAW FOR
ADMINISTRATION OF FEDERAL ELECTIONS.

``Notwithstanding any other provision of this Code or other
law or regulation of the District of Columbia_
``(1) any election for Federal office in the District of
Columbia shall be administered and carried out by the State
of Maryland, in accordance with the applicable law of the
State of Maryland; and
``(2) no provision of this Code shall apply with respect to
any election for Federal office to the extent that the
provision is inconsistent with the applicable law of the
State of Maryland.''.
(f) Effective Date.--This section and the amendments made
by this section shall apply with respect to elections for
Federal office occurring during 2008 and any succeeding year.

SEC. 7. REPEAL OF OFFICE OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DELEGATE.

(a) Repeal of Office.--
(1) In general.--Sections 202 and 204 of the District of
Columbia Delegate Act (Public Law 91--405; sections 1--401
and 1--402, D.C. Official Code) are repealed, and the
provisions of law amended or repealed by such sections are
restored or revived as if such sections had not been enacted.
(2) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection
shall take effect on the date on which a Representative from
Maryland who is elected from a Congressional district which
includes the District of Columbia takes office for the One
Hundred Eleventh Congress.
(b) Conforming Amendments to District of Columbia Elections
Code of 1955.--
(1) In general.--The District of Columbia Elections Code of
1955 is amended--
(A) in section 1 (sec. 1--1001.01, D.C. Official Code), by
striking ``the Delegate to the House of Representatives'';
(B) in section 2 (sec. 1--1001.02, D.C. Official Code)--
(i) by striking paragraph (6), and
(ii) in paragraph (13), by striking ``the Delegate to
Congress for the District of Columbia'';
(C) in section 8 (sec. 1--1001.08, D.C. Official Code)--
(i) by striking ``Delegate'' in the heading, and
(ii) by striking ``Delegate,'' each place it appears in
subsections (h)(1)(A), (i)(1), and (j)(1);
(D) in section 10 (sec. 1--1001.10, D.C. Official Code)--
(i) by striking subparagraph (A) of subsection (a)(3), and
(ii) in subsection (d)--

(I) by striking ``Delegate,'' each place it appears in
paragraph (1), and
(II) by striking paragraph (2) and redesignating paragraph
(3) as paragraph (2);

(E) in section 15(b) (sec. 1--1001.15(b), D.C. Official
Code), by striking ``Delegate,''; and
(F) in section 17(a) (sec. 1--1001.17(a), D.C. Official
Code), by striking ``except the Delegate to the Congress from
the District of Columbia''.
(2) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection
shall apply with respect to elections occurring during 2008
and any succeeding year.

SEC. 8. REPEAL OF OFFICES OF STATEHOOD REPRESENTATIVE AND
SENATOR.

(a) Repeal of Offices.--
(1) In general.--Section 4 of the District of Columbia
Statehood Constitutional Convention Initiative of 1979 (sec.
1--123, D.C. Official Code) is amended by striking
subsections (d) through (h).
(2) Conforming amendments.--
(A) Statehood commission.--Section 6 of such Initiative
(sec. 1--125, D.C. Official Code) is amended--
(i) in subsection (a)--

(I) by striking ``27 voting members'' and inserting ``24
voting members'',
(II) by adding ``and'' at the end of paragraph (4); and
(III) by striking paragraphs (5) and (6) and redesignating
paragraph (7) as paragraph (5); and

(ii) in subsection (a--1)(1), by striking subparagraphs
(F), (G), and (H).
(B) Authorization of appropriations.--Section 8 of such
Initiative (sec. 1--127, D.C. Official Code) is hereby
repealed.
(C) Application of honoraria limitations.--Section 4 of
D.C. Law 8--135 (sec. 1--131, D.C. Official Code) is hereby
repealed.
(3) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection
shall take effect on the date on which a Representative from
Maryland who is elected from a Congressional district which
includes the District of Columbia takes office for the One
Hundred Eleventh Congress.
(b) Conforming Amendments Relating to Elections.--
(1) Application of campaign finance laws.--Section 3 of the
Statehood Convention Procedural Amendments Act of 1982 (sec.
1--135, D.C. Official Code) is hereby repealed.
(2) List of elected officials.--Section 2(13) of the
District of Columbia Elections Code of 1955 (sec. 1--
1001.02(13), D.C. Official Code) is amended by striking
``United States Senator and Representative,''.
(3) Effective date.--The amendments made by this subsection
shall apply with respect to elections occurring during 2008
and any succeeding year.

SEC. 9. NONSEVERABILITY OF CERTAIN PROVISIONS.

If any provision of sections 3, 5(a), or 5(b) of this Act,
or the application thereof to any person or circumstance, is
held invalid, the remaining provisions of this Act or any
amendment made by this Act shall be treated as invalid.

SEC. 10. RULES OF CONSTRUCTION.

Nothing in this Act may be construed--

[[Page H2836]]

(1) to permit residents of the District of Columbia to vote
in elections for State or local office in the State of
Maryland or to permit nonresidents of the District of
Columbia to vote in elections for local office in the
District of Columbia;
(2) to affect the power of Congress under article I,
section 8, clause 17 of the Constitution to exercise
exclusive legislative authority over the District of
Columbia; or
(3) to affect the powers of the Government of the District
of Columbia under the District of Columbia Home Rule Act
(except as specifically provided in this Act).
Amend the title so as to read: ``A bill to restore the
Federal electoral rights of the residents of the District of
Columbia, and for other purposes.''.
____

(The information contained herein was provided by
Democratic Minority on multiple occasions throughout the
109th Congress.)

The Vote on the Previous Question: What It Really Means

This vote, the vote on whether to order the previous
question on a special rule, is not merely a procedural vote.
A vote against ordering the previous question is a vote
against the Democratic majority agenda and a vote to allow
the opposition, at least for the moment, to offer an
alternative plan. It is a vote about what the House should be
debating.
Mr. Clarence Cannon's Precedents of the House of
Representatives, (VI, 308-311) describes the vote on the
previous question on the rule as ``a motion to direct or
control the consideration of the subject before the House
being made by the Member in charge.'' To defeat the previous
question is to give the opposition a chance to decide the
subject before the House. Cannon cites the Speaker's ruling
of January 13, 1920, to the effect that ``the refusal of the
House to sustain the demand for the previous question passes
the control of the resolution to the opposition'' in order to
offer an amendment. On March 15, 1909, a member of the
majority party offered a rule resolution. The House defeated
the previous question and a member of the opposition rose to
a parliamentary inquiry, asking who was entitled to
recognition. Speaker Joseph G. Cannon (R-Illinois) said:
``The previous question having been refused, the gentleman
from New York, Mr. Fitzgerald, who had asked the gentleman to
yield to him for an amendment, is entitled to the first
recognition.''
Because the vote today may look bad for the Democratic
majority they will say ``the vote on the previous question is
simply a vote on whether to proceed to an immediate vote on
adopting the resolution . . . [and] has no substantive
legislative or policy implications whatsoever.'' But that is
not what they have always said. Listen to the definition of
the previous question used in the Floor Procedures Manual
published by the Rules Committee in the 109th Congress, (page
56). Here's how the Rules Committee described the rule using
information from Congressional Quarterly's ``American
Congressional Dictionary'': ``If the previous question is
defeated, control of debate shifts to the leading opposition
member (usually the minority Floor Manager) who then manages
an hour of debate and may offer a germane amendment to the
pending business.''
Deschler's Procedure in the U.S. House of Representatives,
the subchapter titled ``Amending Special Rules'' states: ``a
refusal to order the previous question on such a rule [a
special rule reported from the Committee on Rules] opens the
resolution to amendment and further debate.'' (Chapter 21,
section 21.2) Section 21.3 continues: Upon rejection of the
motion for the previous question on a resolution reported
from the Committee on Rules, control shifts to the Member
leading the opposition to the previous question, who may
offer a proper amendment or motion and who controls the time
for debate thereon.''
Clearly, the vote on the previous question on a rule does
have substantive policy implications. It is one of the only
available tools for those who oppose the Democratic
majority's agenda and allows those with alternative views the
opportunity to offer an alternative plan.

Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I
move the previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule XX, this 15-minute vote on
ordering the previous question on House Resolution 260 will be followed
by 5-minute votes, if ordered, on adopting House Resolution 260; and
suspending the rules and agreeing to House Concurrent Resolution 66.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 228,
nays 198, not voting 7, as follows:

[Roll No. 179]

YEAS--228

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castor
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth

NAYS--198

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jindal
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns

[[Page H2837]]

Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)

NOT VOTING--7

Davis, Jo Ann
Deal (GA)
Delahunt
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Radanovich
Young (FL)

{time} 1156

Mr. CARDOZA and Mr. PASTOR changed their vote from ``nay'' to
``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 180, had I been
present, I would have voted ``yea.''
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 226,
noes 195, not voting 12, as follows:

[Roll No. 180]

AYES--226

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castor
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Frank (MA)
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Grijalva
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth

NOES--195

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Tom
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Jindal
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)

NOT VOTING--12

Davis, Jo Ann
Deal (GA)
Green, Gene
Gutierrez
Johnson, E. B.
Kanjorski
Lewis (GA)
Radanovich
Rush
Taylor
Whitfield
Young (FL)

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised there
are 2 minutes left in this vote.

{time} 1205

So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________