Presidential Library Donation Reform Act of 2007

Madam Speaker, this should be the season of selfless giving, a season where Americans give without any expectation of reward. This should

be a season of joy and happiness when millions enjoy the company of their families and loved ones. But as some of our Nation's elites celebrate this time of giving, they do so with the knowledge that every dollar they give in politics is actually an investment in influence peddling.

Instead of corrupting this season of giving, I hope our public officials will give something back to the American people, something more powerful than money: hope in our government that should be responding to people's needs, not the needs of the powerful few.

The latest example of this sickness afflicting American politics is reflected in our political system being bought out from under us through the system of Presidential libraries whose principals seek to find investors from other countries to help to promote their legacy in perpetuity. Don't believe the logic? Just then follow the money. With President Bush desperately trying to salvage his legacy, action is heating up on funding his Presidential library. While donors to George W. Bush's Presidential library represent a Who's Who in Republican politics, some of these donors have significant business with the White House. According to a recent Harpers magazine article, a wealthy Texas oil man, Ray Hunt, reportedly gave $35 million, $35 million to the Bush Presidential Library.

This same businessman was a big campaign contributor to the Bush- Cheney campaign and, coincidentally, has a stake in a nearly billion- dollar proposal to pipe out Peruvian natural gas. All of our friends who participated in the recent debate on Peru free trade ought to think about this one. In addition, Mr. Hunt is closely involved with a ``legally questionable'' exploration deal with the Iraqi Kurds. Interesting set of friends in this White House.

Estimates now indicate the George W. Bush Presidential Library will cost up to half a billion dollars. A half a billion dollars. Why should a sitting United States President be involved with raising nearly unlimited amounts of money from those seeking influence? The American people surely are not blind. They understand that money buys influence, and a system allowing millions of dollars in unregulated cash corrupts all tents of democracy. We must patch this gaping loophole and prevent the leader of the free world from raising unlimited and unregulated funds for a pet project. This creates as direct a link as one can imagine between money and influence.

With House passage of H.R. 1254, the House of Representatives has clearly demonstrated its intent to provide more accountability for donations made to Presidential libraries. While this legislation is an important step in mandating the disclosure of all donations of more than $200, it does not require the disclosure of all donations from foreign governments, foreign individuals and foreign corporations. The Senate, the other body, should act on Congressman Wexler's legislation and move forward in giving this legislation teeth.

I would like to place in the Record an important article that I referenced in Harper's Magazine, the title of which is, ``On the Hunt: Bush backer seeks $1 billion for Peru project,'' and also an excellent article that was in The Washington Post this past weekend, the headline of which reads, ``Clinton Library Got Funds From Abroad. Saudis said to have given $10 million.'' I ask to include these articles in the Record.

This article then goes on to talk about President Bill Clinton's Presidential library, its cost over $165 million, in which foreign sources helped contribute to that, with the most generous overseas donation coming from Saudi Arabia. Now, the last time I looked, Saudi Arabia is the country that sent the vast majority of 9/11 hijackers here. So why should any United States President take money from those kinds of interests?

It seems to me that these Presidential libraries have gone way overboard. Why can't the Archives just take the records. Why do we need all these palaces created around the country for some of these Presidents? What kind of legacy are they leaving us anyway; a Nation that has been hemorrhaging jobs from coast to coast, a Nation that is terribly in debt, in hock, with over half of our U.S. Government bonds now being sold to foreign interests.

President Lincoln never did anything like that. His service was so great, the American people recognized it for what it was. The same was true with Franklin Roosevelt. Why do we have to have these modern-day palaces to egos of these current-day Presidents? It seems to me that Congress ought to curb this really disgusting behavior, because you never really know when you're meeting with a President of the United States and a foreign leader if they are going to be begging money for a library they wish to create for themselves.

Madam Speaker, we need reform in this area as well.

[From Harper's Magazine, Dec. 18, 2007]

On the Hunt: Bush Backer Seeks $1 Billion for Peru Project

(By Ken Silverstein)

Beginning tomorrow and over the next few weeks, the World

Bank and other lenders will be voting, apparently in favor,

on a package worth more than $1 billion to support a

controversial pipeline project in Peru. The primary company

that would benefit from that money is Hunt Oil, which is

headed by Ray Hunt, a Texas oilman who raised huge sums for

the Bush/Cheney campaigns and who reportedly has given $35

million for the upcoming Bush Presidential Library. Hunt Oil

has recently generated controversy of its own, by signing

what the New York Times called a ``legally questionable''

exploration deal with Iraqi Kurds.

The Hunt-led project would ``build a pipeline, a gas

liquefaction plant, marine terminal and other facilities to

export 4.4 million tons of liquid natural gas annually,''

according to a 2006 story in the Washington Post. The

pipeline would ship liquid natural gas that originates in the

Camisea Field of Peru's Amazonian rain forest and send it to

Mexico and from there, possibly, to U.S. markets.

The Inter-American Development Bank (IDB), in which the

U.S. holds a thirty percent stake, will vote tomorrow on up

to $900 million in loans for the Hunt Oil project. The U.S.

Export-Import Bank (Ex-Im) decides Thursday whether to

allocate several hundred million dollars worth of support,

and the World Bank will vote on a similar amount in January.

The IDB already backed an earlier phase of the Camisea

project, which has been plagued by problems. Among the

troubles, the Post said, were the spilling of ``thousands of

barrels into pristine rivers and killing the fish upon which

indigenous communities depend for their livelihood.''

A number of Peruvian and American groups--including

Environmental Defense, Oxfam America, and World Wildlife

Fund--are asking for further evaluation of the project before

multilateral loans are approved. They point to three broad

areas of concern. First are social and environmental issues,

as the project runs through a spectacular stretch of the

Amazon that is home to 12,000 indigenous people. ``The

lenders have sold themselves cheap and are not setting high

enough standards for their participation,'' said Aaron

Goldzimer of Environmental Defense.

Similar concerns were expressed in a December 12 letter to

Ex-Im from Senator Patrick Leahy of Vermont--chairman of the

subcommittee which monitors Ex-Im and approves the U.S.

contribution to the IDB and World Bank--and his House

counterpart, Congresswoman Nita Lowey of New York. They

wrote:

It is . . . our understanding that there are unfulfilled

commitments and serious failures, risks and concerns still

pending from the first phase of the project. These include a

lack of fully independent monitoring; ongoing corruption

investigations . . . new planned infrastructure in the Nahua

Kugapakori Reserve which may violate previous commitments; a

government audit released last month that identified

significant problems with pipeline construction . . . and

significant impacts on local culture, human health, fisheries

and biodiversity that have not been adequately assessed much

less addressed.

Second, the Peruvian government of President Alan Garcia

has embarked on an aggressive campaign to dismantle the

country's already weak social and environmental institutions.

The government recently fired nearly all the directors of a

federal environmental authority, and replaced them with

political hacks. (Sound familiar?) Garcia recently axed the

country's superintendent of protected areas when he voiced

objections to a proposal that would opened up a large swath

of the Bahuaja Sonene National Park for energy exploration.

Garcia has been attacking critics of domestic energy

projects as commies and pro-poverty advocates. Meanwhile, the

entire Peruvian Amazon has been divided into concessions for

oil and gas development. Two years ago, only 15 percent of

the Amazon had been parceled out for energy development.

Garcia will undoubtedly take multilateral bank support for

the Hunt project as a stamp of approval for his approach and

use it to further steamroll his domestic opponents.

Lastly, the economic benefits of the project for Hunt Oil

are quite clear but far more dubious in the case of Peru. In

their letter to Ex-Imp, Leahy and Lowey said they were

concerned that Peru did not have sufficient gas reserves to

meet both long-term export requirements and domestic demand.

What that means is that Peru might well pay more for energy

imports down the road than it gets now for its exports. Glenn

Jenkins, founder of the Program on Investment Appraisal and

Management at the Harvard Institute for International

Development, prepared an economic analysis of the project for

Environmental Defense. He concluded that massive new reserves

are discovered, Peru would be worse off from an economic

perspective if the project proceeds.

Back in 2003, the Ex-Im, surprisingly, rejected support for

the first phase of the project on environmental grounds, and

the Bush Administration abstained during the IDB vote. Ray

Hunt and his company have been aggressively lobbying in

Washington to make sure the administration supports the

proposed multilateral funding this time around. Early

indications are that the company has succeeded and that the

IDB, Ex-Im and World Bank will end up approving support.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on August 1, 2007, at 9:30 a.m., to mark up S. 1677, the Currency Reform and Financial Markets Access Act of 2007; S. 1518, the Community Partnership to End Homelessness Act of 2007; an original bill entitled the FHA Modernization Act of 2007; an original bill entitled the Housing Assistance Authorization Act of 2007; an original bill entitled the Private Student Loan Transparency and Improvement Act of 2007; and an original bill entitled the Commission on National Catastrophe Risk Management and Insurance Act of 2007.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, August 1, 2007, at 2:30 p.m., in room 253 of the Russell Senate Office Building.

The U.S. Department of Commerce and its component bureaus are responsible for the stewardship, protection, and scientific understanding of our ocean environment and its resources, effective use and growth of the Nation's technological resources, and promoting U.S. trade and tourism. The oversight hearing will examine the Department's effectiveness in implementing these goals.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, August 1, 2007, at 9:30 a.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of this hearing is to receive testimony on recent advances in clean coal technology, including the prospects for deploying these technologies at a commercial scale in the near future.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Foreign Relations be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, August 1, 2007, at 9:30 a.m. to hold a hearing on Africa.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions be authorized to meet in executive session during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, August 1, 2007 at 10 a.m. in the LBJ Room, S-211, of the Capitol building. We will be considering the following:

1. S. 625, Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act

2. S. 1183, Christopher and Dana Reeve Paralysis Act

3. S. 579, Breast Cancer and Environmental Research Act of 2007

4. S. 898, Alzheimer's Breakthrough Act of 2007

5. S. 1858, Newborn Screening Saves Lives Act of 2007

6. The Following Nominations: Diane Auer Jones, of Maryland, to be Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education, Department of Education; David C. Geary, of Missouri, to be a member of the Board of Directors of the National Board for Education Sciences; Miguel Campaneria, of Puerto Rico, to be a member of the National Council on the Arts; and any nominations ready for action.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs be authorized to meet on Wednesday, August 1, 2007, at 10 a.m. in order to conduct business meeting to consider pending committee business.

Agenda

Nominations: The Honorable James A. Nussle to be Director, Office of Management and Budget; Dennis R. Schrader to be Deputy Administrator for National Preparedness, Federal Emergency Management Agency, U.S. Department of Homeland Security.

Legislation: S. 680, Accountability in Government Contracting Act of 2007; H.R. 1254, Presidential Library Donation Reform Act of 2007; S. __, an original bill to provide for the flexibility of certain disaster relief funds, and for improved evacuation and sheltering during disasters and catastrophes; S. 1000, Telework Enhancement Act of 2007; S. 1446, National Capital Transportation Amendments Act of 2007; S. 547, Effective Homeland Security Management Act of 2007; S. 1245, a bill to reform mutual aid agreements for the National Capital Region; S. 597, a bill to extend the special postage stamp for breast cancer research for 2 years.

Post Office Naming Bills: H.R. 2570/S. 1732, a bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 301 Boardwalk Drive in Fort Collins, Colorado, as the ``Dr. Karl E. Carson Post Office Building''; S. 1772, a bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 127 South Elm Street in Gardner, Kansas, as the ``Private First Class Shane R. Austin Post Office''; S. 1781, a bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 118 Minner Avenue in Bakersfield, California, as the ``Buck Owens Post Office''; H.R. 2127, a bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 408 West 6th Street in Chelsea, Oklahoma, as the ``Clem Rogers McSpadden Post Office Building''; H.R. 2563/S. 1539, a bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 309 East Linn Street in Marshalltown, Iowa, as the ``Major Scott Nisely Post Office''; S. 1596, a bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 103 South Getty Street in Uvalde, Texas, as the ``Dolph S. Briscoe, Jr., Post Office Building''; H.R. 1722, a bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 601 Banyan Trail in Boca Raton, Florida, as the ``Leonard W. Herman Post Office''; H.R. 1425, a bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 4551 East 52nd Street in Odessa, Texas, as the ``Staff Sergeant Marvin `Rex' Young Post Office Building''; H.R. 2078, a bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 14536 State Route 136 in Cherry Fork, Ohio, as the ``Staff Sergeant Omer `O.T.' Hawkins Post Office''; H.R. 2077, a bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 20805 State Route 125 in Blue Creek, Ohio, as the ``George B. Lewis Post Office Building''; H.R. 1617, a bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal service located at 561 Kingsland Avenue in University City, Missouri, as the ``Harriet F. Woods Post Office Building''; H.R. 2025, a bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal service located at 11033 South State Street in Chicago, Illinois, as the ``Willye B. White Post Office Building''; H.R. 1335, a bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal service located at 508 East Main Street in Seneca, South Carolina, as the ``S/Sgt Lewis G. Watkins Post Office Building''; H.R. 1260, a bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal service located at 6301 Highway 58 in Harrison, Tennessee, as the ``Claude Ramsey Post Office''; H.R. 1434, a bill to designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 896 Pittsburgh Street in Springdale, Pennsylvania, as the ``Rachel Carson Post Office Building.''

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate in order to conduct a roundtable entitled ``Reauthorization of the Small Business Innovation Research Programs: National Academies' Findings and Recommendations,'' on August 1, 2007, at 10 a.m. in room 428A of the Russell Senate Office Building.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Select Committee on Intelligence be authorized to meet during the session of the Senate on August 1, 2007, at 2:30 p.m. to hold an open hearing.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs' Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia be authorized to meet on Wednesday, August 1, 2007, at 2:30 p.m. in order to conduct a hearing entitled Building a Stronger American Diplomatic.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Subcommittee on Water and Power of the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources be authorized to hold a hearing during the session of the Senate on Wednesday, August 1, 2007, at 2:30 p.m. in room SD-366 of the Dirksen Senate Office Building.

The purpose of the hearing is to receive testimony on the following bills: S. 1054 and H.R. 122, to amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to participate in the Inland Empire regional recycling project and in the Cucamonga Valley Water District recycling project; S. 1472, to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to create a Bureau of Reclamation partnership with the North Bay Water Reuse Authority and other regional partners to achieve objectives relating to water supply, water quality, and environmental restoration; S. 1475 and H.R. 1526, to amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act to authorize the Bay Area Regional Water Recycling Program, and for other purposes; H.R. 30, to amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to participate in the Eastern Municipal Water District Recycled Water

System Pressurization and Expansion Project; H.R. 609, to amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act to authorize the Secretary of the Interior to participate in the Central Texas Recycling and Reuse Project, and for other purposes; and H.R. 1175, to amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities Act to increase the ceiling on the Federal share of the costs of phase I of the Orange County, California, Regional Water Reclamation Project.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1254) to amend title 44, United States Code, to require information on contributors to Presidential library fundraising organizations.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 1254.

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

Mr. Speaker, as I walked into the Capitol today, it was sunny outside, and one of the benefits of coming from Connecticut about 100 or so miles south a few days a week is, you might get a few sunnier days this time of year. And it is important, I think, on this day that there is some sunlight outside because beginning with the bill before us today, and following with pieces of legislation to come, we are going to start once again to open up this government to the people of this country. There is a sense, I think, over time that too much in Washington, D.C., gets done in back rooms and not enough gets done in the open daylight.

Today, we begin to open, again, this government to the people of this country.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong support of H.R. 1254, the Presidential Library Donation Reform Act of 2007, and I am grateful to do so through the benefit of work done before by Chairman Waxman, Congressman Emanuel, by Mr. Clay, and on the other side of the aisle, in particular, Mr. Platts and Mr. Duncan.

The legislation that they have worked on that is before us today is part of a larger effort by Congress to restore that honesty and accountability in the Federal Government. Simply put, this legislation would shine sunlight on donations to Presidential libraries.

Mr. Speaker, the Presidential library system was created by Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Roosevelt had an idea to create a repository to house his Presidential papers for the benefit of future generations of Americans; you could call it yet another successful New Deal program.

His idea was to raise private funds for the construction of a library facility, and then he turned the facility and his papers over to the Federal Government for operation by the National Archives. This model is still followed to this day.

But, like many things, Presidential libraries keep getting more expensive. They have become libraries in concept much more than in practice. They often include various facilities in addition to a repository, such as museums, conference centers, or classrooms.

The George H.W. Bush Library was reported to cost more than $80 million to build. The Clinton library and museum cost about $165 million to build. News reports have indicated that the fund-raising goal for President Bush's library and think tank in Texas is $500 million. One can only imagine how much his successor will have to raise.

The problem is that as these libraries continue to grow in size and scope, Presidential foundations need to raise more money to build them, and many of these organizations do so by selling access to the President while he is still in office while his power and celebrity are the strongest.

Under current law, there is no requirement to disclose the names of the donors and the amounts that they have donated, and there is no limit on the amount that can be donated. You don't need to be a political scientist to see the potential for abuse.

Today's bill simply requires that fund-raising organizations disclose information about their donors to Congress and the National Archives during the period of that most intense fund-raising, while the President is in office, and during the first 4 years after the end of his term.

The legislation before us, H.R. 1254, would require that all organizations established for the purpose of raising funds for Presidential libraries, or their related facilities, report on a quarterly basis all contributions of $200 or more.

Under the bill, Presidential library fund-raising organizations would be required to disclose to Congress and the Archivist the amount and date of each contribution, the name of the contributor, and if the contributor is an individual, the occupation of the contributor. The National Archives would be required to disclose this information through a free, searchable, and downloadable database.

Mr. Speaker, this is a nonpartisan problem, and what we have before us today is a nonpartisan solution. This bill does not seek to limit the amount a donor can contribute or the amount a foundation can solicit. It simply seeks to shed sunlight on the process.

Many of us came to Congress to bring government out of the back rooms and back into the open air. This bill, I believe, is an important step in that transformation; and I am honored to be able to stand on the work of colleagues who have worked on this issue over the years and to be able to present it to this body today.

Mr. Speaker, similar legislation has enjoyed overwhelming bipartisan support in the House in the past, and I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the distinguished chairman of the Government Oversight and Reform Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Clay), the distinguished chairman of the subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my friend, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself so much time as I may consume.

I want to thank both sides of the aisle, Mr. Duncan, Mr. Waxman and Mr. Clay, who have done such great work on this issue. They have constructed a bill which will allow the development of these facilities to move forward in an expeditious manner, but done so in a way that gives people faith in that process.

So much of our ability to build and rebuild faith in this government is connected to whether or not people believe that things we do here are done in the open light of day. Today is going to be a very good day to restore part of people's faith in this government, and this bill is an important first step.

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

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

I thank the minority whip for yielding. On Monday, the House will meet at 12:30 p.m. for morning hour business and 2 p.m. for legislative business. We will consider several bills under suspension of the rules. There will be no votes, Madam Speaker, on Monday before 6:30 p.m.

On Tuesday, the House will meet at 10:30 a.m. for morning hour business, and noon for legislative business. We will consider additional bills under suspension of the rules, and a complete list of those bills for the week will be announced by the close of business today.

On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. We will consider several important pieces of open government and accountability legislation from the Oversight and Government Reform Committee: H.R. 1309, the Freedom of Information Act and amendments; H.R. 1255, Presidential Records Act Amendments; H.R. 1254, Presidential Library Donation Reform Act; H.R. 985, Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act; and H.R. 1362, Accountability in Contracting Act.

Notwithstanding everybody is requesting to meet next Friday, we are not going to do that.

Will the gentleman yield?

Nobody in the House, other than yourself and Mr. Boehner, know that pressure more than I.

The supplemental I expect to be marked up in committee. We have moved it one week, as the gentleman knows, as we have worked on trying to get language that is appropriate language from the perspective of the committee. And Mr. Obey has been working very hard on that, as have others. I expect that to be marked up next week, and I expect the language to be available early next week.

Yes.

I believe that is the week of the 19th.

Yes, sir. I expect the supplemental to be on the floor the week of the 19th, and then we are very hopeful that the budget will be on the floor the week of the 26th.

We don't know that yet. We are discussing that. I don't know yet

I thank the gentleman for the question. As you know, I feel very strongly that the representative of the District of Columbia should have full voting membership in the House of Representatives, as does the representative in parliament of, I believe, every other capital of every other democracy in the world, except for the District of Columbia.

I expect that legislation, and hope that legislation, will be on the floor before we adjourn for the Easter work period, which would probably mean the week of the 26th. The legislation is the legislation, as you know, that is sponsored by Mr. Davis, Tom Davis, the Republican former chairman of your campaign committee, but more importantly, the former chairman of the Government Reform Committee, and cosponsored by Mrs. Norton, the representative of the District of Columbia.

I would expect that legislation to include, as the original legislation included, an additional Member from Utah and full voting rights being extended, and full membership as a full Member, both of the new Utah Representative, but also of the Representative of the District of Columbia.

The hearings I expect to be held next week, I believe. Hearings and markup, I think, will be next week, so I can't tell you exactly, obviously, because it hasn't been marked up yet. But it is my contemplation that there would be a special election in the case of the District of Columbia Representative, and in the case of the Utah Representative.

As we all know, the only way you can get to be a Member of this House is to be elected. There are no appointments to this, so that we would contemplate providing for a special election for both.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

As you know, Mr. Davis is the author of this bill. He had extensive hearings on this bill, as you know, in the last Congress; reported this bill out in the last Congress. It was never brought to the floor, but it was reported out.

And as you know, it was Mr. Davis' and the committee's conclusion that this could be effected by legislation, as has been the admission of States to the Union, and the admission, therefore, of new voting Representatives in the Congress of the United States.

Now, I don't represent that there is not another view as to whether or not you can do this statutorily or whether you need to do it constitutionally. But I can tell you, as you well know, that it was Mr. Davis' conclusion, the committee's conclusion, under his leadership when your party was in control of the House, and it was the conclusion of the committee that it could be done statutorily, and we are proceeding on that theory.

Will the gentleman yield before we go on to a different subject?

I would ask my friend, would the gentleman be for a constitutional amendment if such an amendment were brought to the floor?

I would expect a markup, certainly this is the target for markup, the week of the 19th and on the floor the week of the 26th.

No, I expect the supplemental to be marked up in committee next week.

And on the floor the week of the 19th.

So you would have on the week of the 19th the supplemental and on the week of the 26th the budget on the floor.

Madam Speaker, I yield to my friend, the majority leader, for the purpose of inquiring about next week's schedule.

I thank the gentleman for sticking with his earlier decision on next Friday, in spite of what I am sure must have been the incredible pressure for us to be here next Friday; and we will try to get our work done.

I would yield.

I appreciate the gentleman's view of that, and he is right. I do share it. I would ask the gentleman, on the supplemental that has been described in concept this week, when

would we expect to see language on the supplemental?

And the gentleman then would expect it to be on the floor the following week?

You expect it to be on the floor the following week?

That would be the week of the 19th.

And as an appropriations bill, does the gentleman anticipate that we will have opportunities to amend that bill on the floor?

Well, I would just say before I move to my next question, of course, this is, as we all know, an important and at the same time controversial piece of legislation, and we would hope for a full debate and an opportunity to have a chance to amend the bill on the floor.

The leader also announced, I believe, this week, maybe it was late last week, that we should anticipate seeing legislation on the floor within the month on allowing the Delegate from D.C. to vote on the floor. I wonder if the leader could tell us a little more about his idea on what this proposal would include.

I yield.

Does the gentleman know when that legislation was designed to take effect? After the next election? I am not familiar with the specifics of that legislation. Certainly I do know that Mr. Davis was the sponsor.

In our Constitution, as the gentleman knows, the District was established differently than most capitals and, I am sure, has developed in a different way than was anticipated at the time.

But when Presidential voting rights were extended to the District, the Constitution had to be amended to do that.

Would the gentleman anticipate that this would also require a constitutional amendment since the District is not part of any State?

I would.

Well, I would caution the gentleman on that theory. As high a regard as I have for Mr. Davis, and it is high, I have certainly never considered him to be the ultimate authority on the Constitution. And, of course, when you allow States to enter the Union, as the Constitution provides for, you have the requisite number of Members of the House and two Members of the Senate.

And the major question I am sure I will have during that debate and later will be exactly what State is Washington, D.C. part of, since the Constitution specifically says that Members of the House are selected by the various States.

I think there is a constitutional question here, and that is one of the reasons that, when we were in the majority, that Mr. Davis' bill didn't come to the floor. And I think there will be, should be, a constitutional remedy, if there is a remedy.

I might be for whatever it took to return the voting rights for the Member of Congress to a State that is represented by two Senators which, of course, would be, I would assume, your State.

I don't know that I would be for an amendment that would allow somebody to be represented uniquely that doesn't have Senatorial representation, and, of course, you are assuming that it would be inside the Constitution. I do think that would be the way to do it.

And while the population of the District may allow it to have a population similar to the districts that are represented by the average Member in terms of population, the Constitution, to me, appears to be very explicit on the question of Representatives of a State.

Half of the original District of Columbia, as the gentleman knows, was returned to the State of Virginia in, I believe, the 1840s. They are represented by a Member of Congress, and maybe more than one, and they are represented by two Senators, the Senators from Virginia. That appears to me to be a remedy that would be well within the Constitution. But this proposal that Mr. Davis and others have made, I think, will have a significant constitutional hurdle to overcome.

The other question I would direct to the gentleman is on the budget itself. When does the majority expect that we will see a markup in committee of the budget resolution, and when would that resolution be on the floor?

So you are anticipating, if I could refresh my mind here to the gentleman's comments, that both the supplemental appropriations bill and the budget will be marked up during the week of the 19th.

Next week. And on the floor the week of the 19th.

Well, it is a good thing I clarified that in my mind.

As I recall, that is exactly what the leader suggested, and now I have that straight in my mind, and those will be weeks that we would hope to have a full debate and important debate for the country.

I thank my friend for the information he has provided.