Permitting the use of the rotunda of the Capitol for a ceremony as part of the commemoration of the days of remembrance of victims of the Holocaust.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 260 and ask for its immediate consideration.

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.)

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. 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. 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.

Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my time.

Yes, sir, we have two additional speakers.

Yes, sir.

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.

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.

We anticipate having our Speaker, and we continue to reserve the balance of our time.

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.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

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.

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.

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. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time we have remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Davis.

Yes, Mr. Speaker. I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

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.)

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to the time remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

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.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

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.''

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,

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. 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. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop), a former member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, if I could inquire upon the time that remains on both sides.

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.

You do anticipate two additional speakers?

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman to run down his time.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).

Mr. Speaker, if I could please inquire upon the time remaining on both sides.

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. 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. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).

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. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Davis.

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. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me the time, and I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher).

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.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

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.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

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.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

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.

Would the gentleman yield so I can respond to my friend?

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.

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.

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. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Let me just ask my friend from California, what about the constitutional expert

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?

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

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.

That is correct in the case of Virginia, if the gentlelady would allow me.

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.

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. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the concurrent resolution (H. Con. Res. 66) permitting the use of the rotunda of the Capitol for a ceremony as part of the commemoration of the days of remembrance of victims of the Holocaust.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks in the Record on this concurrent resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of House Concurrent Resolution 66, which authorizes the use of the Capitol rotunda for a ceremony on April 19, 2007, commemorating the victims of the Holocaust.

The United States Holocaust Memorial Council is entrusted with observing the Days of Remembrance. These Days of Remembrance and the solemn ceremony at the Capitol set the manner in which similar events across our country pay homage to the 6 million people who lost their lives during one of mankind's darkest periods in history.

When World War II ended in 1945, 6 million European Jews were dead, including more than 1 million Jewish children. While all Jews were marked for death, children were among the most defenseless.

This year, the Holocaust Memorial Council, which oversees the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum and organizes the annual Days of Remembrance, has selected ``Children in Crisis: Voices from the Holocaust'' as its theme.

In any day and age, among the most vulnerable targets are children, and most often they are the first victims of senseless deeds. The children of the Holocaust endured lives filled with fear and suffering. The emotional and physical cruelty forced upon them is unimaginable. It is estimated that over 1 million, and as many as 1.5 million, Jewish boys and girls were murdered under Nazi rule in Germany and occupied Europe. These children were murdered because they were Jewish, not because of any action they had taken; not because of any crime they had committed, but simply because of their religion and their ethnicity.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that a number of the Members have been to Yad Vashem, the Holocaust memorial in Jerusalem, and I have an enduring image there of the children, the stars which represent them, the luminaries which hang from the ceiling, those tens of thousands of luminaries which remind us all of this overwhelming reason for us to remember these children.

Many children of the Holocaust were confronted by overpowering and destructive forces, separated from their parents and coerced into hiding. Children who found themselves hiding in the shadows were faced with unyielding hardships, and some were subjected to dark, cramped conditions for weeks, for months and even years, while others wandered from place to place seeking refuge, never knowing who to trust.

For those who survived, the end of the war was rarely the end of the struggle. Many children found themselves alone, with no family to be reunited with. The devastating and heart-wrenching reality was that there were no surviving family members, and they would now face the future without parents, grandparents or siblings.

So, as we stop to reflect on this heinous event, let it serve as a reminder that there is no room for prejudice, oppression and hatred. As American and world citizens, it is important that succeeding generations are called upon to remember the atrocities of the Holocaust and the similarities in the hate crimes we see today.

The will of the human spirit indeed is unwavering in the face of adversity, and history has shown us that in times of despair, humanity prevails and always looks towards a brighter future.

There is no better place than the United States Capitol rotunda to embody the reverence and dignity so deserving and honoring the victims of the Holocaust, especially the children. The United States Capitol has stood as a symbol of freedom and liberty and a symbol of hopes and dreams.

It is important, Mr. Speaker, that we use the rotunda, the scene of so many historic events, to draw attention again to one of the immense tragedies in human history and to take this time also to honor our colleagues who were personally victimized by the Holocaust or whose families suffered and died, and to pledge anew that such a atrocities must not be permitted to occur. We recall the words, ``never again, never again.''

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.