To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to adjust the estimated tax payment safe harbor based on income for the preceding year in the case of individuals with adjusted gross income greater than $5 million.

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

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

On Tuesday, the House will meet at 10:30 a.m. for morning hour business and at noon for legislative business. We will consider additional bills under suspension of the rules. A complete list of those bills, Mr. Speaker, will be available by the end of business today. We will also expect to consider H.R. 362, the 10,000 Teachers, 10 Million Minds Science and Math Scholarship Act; and H.R. 363, Sowing the Seeds through Science and Engineering Research Act.

On Wednesday and Thursday, the House will meet at 10 a.m. on both those days. On Friday, no votes are expected, and Friday is not scheduled at this date. We will consider H.R. 1332, the Small Business Lending Improvements Act; and H.R. 249, a bill to restore the prohibition on the commercial sale and slaughter of wild free-roaming horses and burros.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Of course, as he knows, it was only 38 days ago that the President made his last request for an addition to the supplemental, and 94 days sounds like longer than I think it has been. But notwithstanding that, we do expect the supplemental to be on the floor next week. That is our expectation. If things go as we hope, the supplemental will be on the floor, and, hopefully, we can get that to the President either very late next week or no later than a week from this coming Monday. We think that is important.

As you know, you and I and others were down at the White House to discuss whether there was room for agreement and accommodation on this issue. We are still having those discussions, as you know, and we are hopeful that that can be reached.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his question. And, frankly, I don't want to anticipate what the conferees are going to do, having been appointed just last night. There was a vote on the House floor. Frankly, the vote would have had no effect whether it passed or

failed in light of the fact that it instructed the House to do what it had already done. So if it had failed, presumably the House was going to be in the same position that it otherwise would have been in.

But notwithstanding that, I don't want to anticipate what the conferees are going to do in light of the fact that they have just been appointed, but I do know that the chairmen of the conference on both sides, House and Senate, want to see this matter resolved quickly, sent to the President, would want to see the troops funded. We were very pleased to see the Department of Defense make it very clear, as, frankly, General Speer and General Ward made clear to me in Europe, that funding is available and will be able to be accommodated through June.

As the gentleman knows, last year when the President made a request for a supplemental, that was not passed until mid-June, that supplemental. So I was pleased to see the Department of Defense indicate that that would be okay. It is not perfect. That is not what they would choose, but, in any event, through the month of June. We hope to get this work done long before that.

Obviously, we are very hopeful that we will pass a budget, that we will pass a budget in a timely fashion. As you know, we did pass a budget through the House in a timely fashion. The Senate passed its budget. It is now in conference.

Because of the April break, Easter-Passover break, we have not reached the April 15th. As a matter of fact, I talked to Mr. Conrad just an hour ago, I talked to Mr. Spratt just an hour ago, and we are very hopeful that we will come to an agreement.

I would observe, of course, last year the disagreement was between the Republican leadership in the Senate and the Republican leadership in the House. I understand what the gentleman is saying. Some of the votes in the Senate were overwhelming and bipartisan in terms of some of these issues. So this is an issue that we've got to overcome. We hope we can overcome it and move the budget.

But I want to tell the gentleman, he is absolutely correct. I am very focused. Mr. Obey is very focused. We are going to pass appropriation bills in a timely fashion. We hope to finish by the 30th of June. Very frankly, the more quickly we can move appropriation bills, perhaps the more flexibility we will have in June's schedule. But as you know, June now is scheduled for every Monday and every Friday meeting to effect that business, which is critical.

As the gentleman knows, we met last year for the full year. We left here in December and nine of the 11 appropriation bills were unpassed. We don't want to be in that position. The gentleman knows, and I know, that part of that problem was the Senate's inability to move its business as quickly as we would like, as quickly as we did. The Labor- Health bill, of course, never passed this floor last year, but we are hopeful that that will happen.

I will go over the schedule of the appropriations process with the gentleman at some point in time. We are hopeful that mid-May to the end of June we will pass our appropriation bills. I will tell the gentleman it will be my intention to discuss with both Chairman Spratt and Chairman Obey that if the budget process cannot be resolved, not in this House, but in the other House, that it would be my hope that the House would mark its bills to the House-passed number, as you know we have done in the past; and that would certainly be my intention.

Again, I have not discussed that with Mr. Obey at this point in time, that's premature, nor have I discussed it with others, but we are hopeful to move ahead on the appropriation bills.

As you know, passage of the budget has a much greater impact in the Senate than it does in the House with respect to the rules process under which appropriation bills are considered in the Senate.

Would the gentleman yield?

The gentleman and I have a slightly different perspective on what the rule provided.

First of all, as you know, motions to recommit were available in both of the bills that were on the floor. The tabling referred to that, if the second bill had not been adopted or the PAYGO provision had not been adopted, they would both be tabled. The reason for that was, we wanted to be consistent with our pledge to the PAYGO principle.

What we didn't want, what I don't want, and you and I have discussed this, is, I'm frankly ``perplexed,'' might be the word, as someone who has been in the legislative body for some 40 years; and I think the parliamentarians were accurate in their determination of germaneness, but germaneness has always meant to me in 40 years, I will tell my friend, that it is pertinent to the subject at hand.

You know that when you add a PAYGO provision, which frankly you abandoned on your side in 2002, you did not want to be constrained by PAYGO. I understand why you didn't want to be constrained by PAYGO because you couldn't pay for your tax cuts. You talked about spending. We've cut revenues very deeply. There were different philosophical arguments about that; but the fact is, they were not paid for, and as a result, the deficits have in large part expanded very greatly.

With respect to the rule, yes, the rule was structured in a way that limited to the subject matter at hand, whether it was the tax bill or the D.C. voting rights bill, motions to recommit to those subjects, as opposed to expanding to subjects that, frankly, from my perspective, are used for political purposes.

I will tell my friend that the motion last night and the motion on the previous D.C. bill had nothing to do with D.C. voting rights. And last night's bill had everything to do with trying to focus on our Members being targeted. And, in fact, the memorandum that you sent--not you, but somebody sent around to all of your Members expressed the purpose of your motion to recommit to target Members for political reasons, from my perspective.

In that context, if you are asking me if it is my intent in the future to try to limit you from doing that, the answer to that question is ``yes.'' If your question is, do I want to make sure that you have a motion to recommit with or without instructions, a motion to recommit, of course, kills the bill, as the motion to recommit to report back promptly kills the bill.

The irony is, the gentleman from North Carolina offered a motion to recommit the other day with respect to guns that related to the District of Columbia. Excuse me, I'm not sure it related directly to the District of Columbia, which would have had the perverse effect of offering the amendment and, if adopted, would have killed the amendment in the same process. That is because it was referring it back to committee. The committee would not have reported out that amendment.

If he had really been interested, in my opinion, in passing that amendment, as opposed to politically giving a vote that was difficult for Members on our side of the aisle, what he would have done is moved his gun amendment to be reported back forthwith and had his vote on that up or down.

But I will tell my friend, as he well knows, I want to make sure that from my perspective, and I have told him, I will not suggest a change in the rules, we did not change the rules, there was some discussion about that, without discussing it with him. I want your side to feel that you are getting a fair shot at relevant motions to recommit with or without amendments that do not kill the bill in the process. I don't think that is something that is unfair to expect.

Will the gentleman yield on that issue?

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

We could go on for some period of time on this. We have a different perspective, not on providing fairness for all Members. I said the gentleman from North Carolina; it was the young gentleman from Texas, and I thank you for correcting me on that.

Frankly, I want to tell my friend that if the gentleman from Texas was sincere, in my view, in wanting his amendment adopted, he would not have rereferred it to committee. Very frankly, in my opinion, his amendment would have passed. The bill would have been reported back forthwith, and the bill would have passed.

We all make a judgment as to what the purposes of amendments are. My view is, the gentleman voted against the underlying bill. The gentleman was opposed to the underlying bill. His motion was to do two things: to provide

an instance where on an issue not related to voting rights in the District of Columbia, but on an issue he thought the majority of the House supported which, I think he was correct, he wanted attached to that, and therefore create a dichotomy for Members. They either had to vote for an issue they were for and kill the bill, or vote against an issue they were for and be perceived as being against the proposition.

I understand what you are saying. I do not believe that it is fair legislative process to necessarily believe that that needs to be made in order.

Now, having said that, we did not amend the rules. Consistent with the rules, we provided a process on PAYGO. You waived PAYGO on a regular basis when it was in effect. As a result of doing so, you narrowed the scope of amendments. Not only did you do that, but you also waived the necessity to pay for things from time to time.

But, having said that, I want to reiterate to my friend, and we have had good discussions and will continue to have good discussions, but I am not going to say that we are going to allow our Members to be put in very difficult positions for what we perceive to be for political reasons only, not for the substance. If the gentleman from Texas had wanted to amend the substance with the motion to recommit, he had that available to him and have it reported back forthwith so it could be adopted. He had that available to him. He chose not to take that route.

It caused us some consternation, as was noticed, I am sure by some, particularly to me, because I felt very strongly about that bill. The majority of this House has now passed that bill, with significant support from your side of the aisle. As a matter of fact, it was a bill sponsored by one of your leaders, a former chairman of your campaign committee.

We want to make sure that we consider legislation on this floor fairly, and we will certainly work with you toward that end. But I don't want to assure the gentleman that I am not going to try to provide for the consideration of legislation and amendments thereto which are germane and relevant.

If the gentleman will yield on that, you understood my phrase. It was my perception. I did not question his sincerity. But the perception of what he did, offering the amendment, and within the ambit of the same amendment he offered killing the bill to which the amendment would be attached, appeared to me to be an act that was at least contradictory.

I thank the gentleman for his observations. This has probably gone on longer than the Members or the public wants it to, but let me simply observe that waivers obviously relate to and PAYGO relates to entitlement spending, and while you may not have waived it with respect to spending, because PAYGO does not affect discretionary spending, what it affects, of course, is entitlement spending.

The reason it affected the D.C. bill was because the Member from Utah would have had to have been paid and would have been entitled to be paid. So a relatively de minimis sum was involved in that.

Frankly, the gentleman and I have a disagreement in terms of the rule that was used. First, the rules have not been amended. They have not been amended. Secondly, this rule was consistent with our rules.

The only thing that this rule did that I think caused so much consternation on your side was it adopted PAYGO without opening the bill up to what were amendments that were extraneous to the subject matter and offered the bill on its merits. You were free to offer a motion to recommit, with or without amendments, on the subject matter of the bills, either bill. That was your right then.

The tabling simply referred to making sure that we kept our promise that bills would have PAYGO on them, and if they didn't have PAYGO on them, we weren't interested in passing them, because we were going to be faithful to our pledge on that rule. That is what the tabling dealt with. It didn't deal with your motion to recommit.

If you had defeated H.R. 1906, the second bill with the PAYGO provision, H.R. 1905 would not have gone forward. But our side of the aisle believed that both were important and wanted them together because we wanted the PAYGO provision in there, a relatively de minimis sum in terms of the budget, but consistent with our rule.

If I can make another observation on another matter, you mentioned the supplemental had been pending 94 days. It has been pending 73 days. I think that is an important distinction. That is almost a month of legislative work, if not more.

I am sure.

Mr. Speaker, I rise for the purpose of inquiring about next week's schedule, and I yield to my friend from Maryland, the majority leader.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for that information.

Last evening we did appoint conferees to the conference on the emergency supplemental for the war. Would we expect to have a conference report, do you think, sometime next week? I think it has been 94 days now since the President requested that, and I am wondering if we would anticipate a conference report anytime next week.

I would yield.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for that response. And we would hope to see that bill next week on the floor or as soon as possible because there is some great likelihood from that White House meeting that the gentleman mentioned that there is going to have to be a second bill if we can't resolve these issues that lead toward a veto.

On one of those issues we did yesterday, the House voted on the motion to instruct the conferees to sustain the House position. Does the gentleman have any information on the likelihood of the House or Senate view of the deadline issue that we discussed yesterday?

I yield to the gentleman.

I thank the gentleman for that answer, Mr. Speaker. I hope we can. I think we do need to continue to talk about how we ultimately resolve this issue.

Now, in the information that I am getting from both the Defense Department and our Members that have military installations is that while the war effort, itself, with lots of changing of categories of money and determinations of money around may be very well up through June, that the defense effort generally is impacted because money that would have been spent for National Guard training or money that would have been spent to pay obligations to a contractor are not available in this process.

Now, the last time Secretary Gates, at least, who was not Secretary at the time, said that the spend-out was not quite as quick, and he also said that the need was not quite as critical. But the gentleman is absolutely right in pointing out that last time this process took a long time, and one of the reasons it took a long time was that the House leaders, the majority leaders at that time, were in conflict with the Senate about additional spending. I don't see any of those discussions, frankly, going on, but the additional spending last time at $14.5 billion did not occur because the House leaders wouldn't accept that and we passed the bill in the House last time a month after the President sent the request up, and then it was a number of months, almost 4 or 5 months, before we got a final bill because we were fighting that additional spending, and at some point we are going to have to also engage not just on the issues of deadlines and whether or not we are micromanaging the effort, but the additional spending was the real problem last time. I would like to think that there was some effort going on there. I don't know that there is.

My next question, though, is that the gentleman's goals for the appropriations process really would require us to pretty quickly move on the budget itself. We missed a deadline that we often miss. I don't want to belabor that point, but that April 15 deadline we normally had to hit if we had a real opportunity to get the bills out of the House by the Fourth of July, which we did in the first part of the last Congress and all but one of the bills in the second part of the last Congress.

What is your sense of where we are on the conferees for the budget and a final budget document?

I thank the gentleman for sharing that with me. And certainly there were occasions where we had to do exactly what the gentleman is suggesting, and that is always one option. At some point, based on the meeting the deadlines we hope to meet and you hope to meet on the calendar, you have to decide whether that is the option you have to go to or not, as opposed to a conference report that we can agree to that lets us move forward that way.

I would also like to repeat one of the comments the gentleman made simply because we don't get much credit here or didn't get much credit for efforts we did make to control spending. And you are absolutely right, a year ago at this time the fight was between the Senate, which was led by Republicans at the time, and the House that was led by the Republicans on that additional spending.

And I just want to make the point that you already made once, but we don't hear it emphasized very often, but that was the fight. House Republicans did win, and we spent $14.5 billion less than our friends on the other side intended to spend, offered to spend, wanted to spend; and that is what that time frame was all about.

We do, I believe, have more concerns in overall defense spending just because the spend-down has been quicker this year than last year, and Secretary Gates, not me, would be the source for that view of the difference in the 2 years. But clearly, the process, as the gentleman rightly pointed out, is never as easy as we want, as quick as we want, and there are obstacles there.

I would like to, before we conclude today, ask a couple more questions. One is the concern that I have and many of our Members have on the rule that was used this week to waive PAYGO for the D.C. bill and to create a new obstacle for Members who hope to offer a motion to recommit.

Twelve years and, now, a few months ago, when Republicans took control of the House, they extended the motion to recommit to the minority at that time and never failed to offer that motion to recommit under the traditions of the House. I believe, while it often was not

allowed the minority in previous years, never in either previous times or the last 12 years was an actual tabling motion put in the rule, which creates a different circumstance intentionally, but a different circumstance than was ever created in this House before.

And I wonder really two things: Would that tabling motion be something that we will see again? And also, would we expect to see the PAYGO effort in the future waived for the principal reason to be on the floor and handled in a separate vote and a separate piece of legislation, like we did this time?

Is that now the anticipated norm for this process, Mr. Leader?

I would.

Well, I thank my friend for that.

But I do think in that view of this that there is a significant restriction of the rights available to Members. Members have to defend what they do on the floor. Let me make a couple of points.

One is, in the incident you mentioned when the gentleman from Texas offered a motion to recommit well within the rules, and, by the way, in that case and many other cases the only option that the minority has had has been the option of last resort, unless you take that away, which was the motion to recommit. All of our amendments were rejected; no matter how germane they might have been, they were not allowed.

The Members of the House are the ones who have the opportunity to decide what is the right vote and what's not. And, in fact, stopping that vote offered under the rules by a Member in good faith I think was a violation of that Member's rights as a Member of the House.

Now, you could have had that vote, it might have killed the bill, but you could have started a new bill just like you did anyway. The only difference would have been that the Member of the House that brought the issue to the floor would have had his full rights as a Member to have his issue not only debated, but voted on. And we were literally seconds from actually having that vote, which under the rules of the House would have sent the bill to the committee promptly.

There may have been no way to leave the committee with that bill, but you could have started a new bill just like you did. The only difference would have been that the gentleman from Texas would have had his motion voted on, as I believe he had a right to.

On the other issue, we did have PAYGO for 8 years of the 12 years we were in the majority. We complied with it. We still never took away the ability of your side to do just what you said we shouldn't be able to do.

Let me finish the thought, and then I will.

I can give you many instances where not only did your side try to avail themselves of that right, which we never then took away, and it probably did create political concerns for our Members; but the House has been here longer than any Member has been here and will be here longer than any Member will be here. And beginning to change the rules in that way or change the rights of Members to offer their objections, their ideas, their improvements as Members always have is a bigger step than I think the gentleman may realize.

And in terms of whether things are germane or not, I very well remember a bill to create the Homeland Security part of our government and the motion to recommit was about corporate inversions. Now, that is every bit as tangential as anything the gentleman just mentioned. But we didn't go back the next week and say, we're never going to allow the minority to have that vote again because it was troublesome for us. Troublesome for us and protecting the rights of Members as they relate to past Members and future Members I think are two different things.

I will yield to my friend.

I would say to my friend, we do have a disagreement on this and I think we do see what my good friend perceives as a minor change in procedure differently because I don't think it is that at all.

I would say a couple of things: one is 18 times at least in the minority our friends on the other side used the same rule that my friend now so vigorously objects to because it would kill the bill. Eighteen times. They never were able to do it, but 18 times used it, many times with the provisions just like the one I cited earlier that were every bit as tangential as the one the gentleman is speaking to.

Also I am sure in terms of, I don't know if the word was ``sincerity'' or what, but I do know that our friend from Texas is a sincere and dedicated Member.

Mr. Speaker, my friend knows as well, if not better than anybody, how to explain exactly how a Member could be motivated to do both of those things and has defended the rights of the minority for a number of years in an extraordinary way on similar kinds of issues. But the point here is that we are about more than the moment, and my friend said that he wants to do everything he can to prevent his Members from being put in a difficult political situation. The truth is, this is a difficult job, and Members who run for it should understand it is a difficult job and there are things that not only have to be decided, but have to be explained as part of that job. And while changing a procedure, a process, in a way that has never been handled before with this tabling inclusion this week may seem insignificant, I don't think it is.

Also, on our side during the time we had PAYGO, my friend mentioned spending, we never waived PAYGO for spending. On any spending bill, we always adhered to the PAYGO rule. You always had that available to you.

We will move forward. I do appreciate the fact that we are going to continue to talk about these issues before we do anything to change the overall rules of the House. I am concerned, however, when we change what one of our outside observers has referred to recently as the norms of the House. This rule this week was not only outside the norms of the House; it was unique in the way it handled this tabling issue. It was not unique in the way it divided the bills. I am not complaining about that. I am complaining about the potential for a Member to use all the tools previously available to them to actually, frankly, stop legislation that they didn't like if they didn't like it. But you can't do that unless 217 other people join you in that.

We are not in the majority on our side, we understand that, and for us to do anything under the rules of the House, with a majority vote, Democrats have to join us. If we make those options too appealing, that is, frankly, not our fault. Changing the rules for the momentary relief of Members has greater long-term consequences than I believe my friend realizes.

I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, we will get our staffs together and look at the calendar later because they seem to be in disagreement on that, even at this moment as you give me that information.

I am going to make one, hopefully, final comment on this issue for now, though I am sure it is going to be an issue we talk about in the future.

For my friend to understand, it is not a concern about this bill. It is not a concern about what happened on that bill. It is the fact that the tabling addition may be within the rules, but extraordinary. If it is within the rules it has never been done before. The tabling addition changes the consequences of a Member's motion. When you change the consequences of a Member's motion, you take a right away from the Member that the Member previously had.

We may have to discuss this. I can see we are still not quite on the same wavelength. It is not about this bill, Mr. Hoyer. It is not about this week. It is about doing something that has never been done before that has consequential impact, and I believe this does. I think you and I should continue to talk about it. I think our Members in the minority are justly concerned about it, as you would have been in the minority if we had done something we never did in the majority, which is change the consequences of your motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 317 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 the consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous materials into the Record.

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

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 317 provides for consideration of H.R. 1905, the District of Columbia House Voting

Rights Act of 2007, and H.R. 1906, a direct spending offset bill.

Mr. Speaker, this Nation was built upon the principle that it is patently unjust to require free men and women to pay taxes to a government within which they have no direct involvement; a principle so important that the Founding Fathers knew if they were unsuccessful they would become outlaws and probably forfeit their lives.

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. How can the United States deny democracy in its Capital while it promotes democracy abroad?

These citizens pay billions of dollars in Federal taxes, have sacrificed their lives in Iraq and other wars since the American Revolution.

However, when you look at the text of the 16th amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which states, ``The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration,'' you might ask yourself: Since there is no mention of the District of Columbia in this amendment, and it only refers to ``the several States,'' then how is it that D.C. residents are required to pay Federal income taxes?

The answer is that Congress, by statute, specifically, enacted the District of Columbia Income and Franchise Tax Act of 1947, which imposed Federal income taxation on the residents of the District of Columbia.

And when the law was challenged in the courts in 1970 in the case of Breakefield v. D.C., the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld both the tax and Congress's constitutional authority to levy it. Further, the Supreme Court later denied even to hear the appeal.

This is taxation without representation at its worst, and it is completely undemocratic. Furthermore, what is clearly evident from the Court's review of Breakefield is that if Congress can levy taxes on D.C. residents without a constitutional amendment, then surely Congress can give D.C. residents a full voting representative within the House of Representatives without a constitutional amendment. This notion that there is a binding precedent for Congress to legislate on all matters related to the District of Columbia is further supported by decisions in such cases as Tidewater, and Adams v. Clinton.

Our actions today would correct this injustice by granting the citizens of our Nation's Capital a full voting representative in the House of Representatives.

Some of my colleagues have suggested that the D.C. House Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional and that we in Congress will be acting outside the power enacting this bill. This is not true. Article I, section 8 of the Constitution clearly enumerates the powers of Congress. And among the powers listed, 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 the 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 that right away by statute in 1800 when the Federal Government assumed control of the District. In the political battles that followed, District residents were denied a vote in Congress. Now, certainly, if Congress can grant the right and then remove that right by statute, so too can it reinstate the right by statute if it so chooses.

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 consistent with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, they 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 the Founding Fathers, that ``taxation without representation is tyranny.''

Too much time has passed. Every day that we fail to act is one more day that we deny democracy. It is time to correct this grave injustice and provide the citizens of the District of Columbia 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 thank my colleague for his comments, but I could not disagree with him more.

First of all, this bill does not attempt to create statehood for the District of Columbia. In fact, as I said just a few moments ago, the legislation that has been passed in prior occasions, the one, in fact, with respect to requiring residents of the District of Columbia to pay income tax, despite the fact that the 16th amendment says that it is for the residents of the States, indicates very clearly that the District of Columbia is not a State and, rather, that Congress has the authority and the ability to make legislation with respect to the District of Columbia. In the Tidewater case, again Congress came forward and said that diversity jurisdiction applies to the District of Columbia even though it is not a State, and clearly that was upheld by the Supreme Court.

So this is not without precedent. This is something that Congress has done in the past because under article I, section 8, they have exclusive jurisdiction over the District of Columbia.

A couple of other points that I just would like to respond to. My colleague said that the majority just won't listen to reason, and I can't help but think that maybe that is what was said about the Founding Fathers by the members of parliament, that the people in America just won't listen to reason. How dare they talk about being represented just because we tax them?

This issue is critical. We tax the people in the District of Columbia. They are citizens of the United States. They fight and they die in our wars. They should be able to have a voting Member in Congress.

He also said that the majority has sunk to an all-time low. I am very troubled by that. If giving the right to vote to Americans, giving the right to vote to people who live here in the District of Columbia, in our capital, is sinking to an all-time low, then that is where I want to be, because clearly that is what we should be doing. We spend billions of dollars in other places in the world to ensure that citizens in other places in the world have the right to vote. We certainly should be able to do that here in our own country.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Sutton).

The rule contains two motions to recommit, one for each bill.

If either bill is not passed, then both bills are defeated.

Will the gentleman yield?

Thank you, sir.

This rule ensures that neither of the two bills can achieve passage in the House without being subject to a motion to recommit. Now, you talk about fairness. My colleague talks about fairness, and he believes in fairness as we all do. But that is what this bill is about; this bill is about fairness.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague, again, talks about fairness, and fairness is why we are here today.

He talks about what we are trying to do today. What we are trying to do is give the residents of the District of Columbia their long overdue right to vote. That is why we are here today. The procedure that we are following is fair, it is just, and the important thing for us to remember is why we are here, and that is to give the right to vote to the residents of the District of Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 9 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton).

Agreed.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Texas and my colleagues on the Rules Committee for their spirited debate in this issue. I would also like to thank my distinguished colleague from the District of Columbia for her leadership on this issue and her passion. She has shown such incredible focus in terms of what she feels and what she believes, and it is contagious and I commend her for it.

This is an issue that is not only important to the residents to the District of Columbia, but it is important for the residents of the entire country because it is about giving the right to vote to people who deserve it. And that is what our country was founded on and that is what we are all about.

In my closing, I would just like to mention several points that were discussed in the previous debate, and one of them was brought up by my colleague from North Carolina. And I am troubled by the fact that he is attempting to talk about power grabs and talking about turning this issue into a political issue. This is not a political issue. It never has been. That is what the American people don't want out of their Congress. They want debate on issues that are important to the people.

This is something that is important to all of America. It is important to the residents of Utah, and it is important to the residents of the District of Columbia. It is not about a power grab. It is not about politics. And that is what the American people don't want to hear their Representatives in Congress talking about. They want to hear about why we support a bill. And the reason that this bill is important, the reason that this bill is critical is because it is constitutional.

My colleague from Texas said that the end doesn't justify the means, and I agree with him; the end cannot justify the means. This bill is not about that. This bill is clearly constitutional.

And I remind my colleague from North Carolina that if he looks at why Congress originally set up the District of Columbia, it was because the capital was in Philadelphia, and they were not able to do the kinds of things in Philadelphia that they wanted to because Pennsylvania was a sovereign State and they couldn't tell the State of Pennsylvania what they wanted done. So they came upon this idea to create a district, a district which they would have control over. That is why the District of Columbia was set up. That is why we are debating this bill today.

I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is, as I said, about fairness. They are talking about everything but what is important. They are talking about every fact except the important fact, and that is that this bill is about giving the right to vote to citizens of the United States. That is what is important.

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 and paid their fair share of taxes. We have an opportunity to correct this grave injustice and provide to the citizens of our Nation's Capital the most important right of all, and that is the full right to vote.

I want to commend again the Delegate from Washington (Ms. Norton) for her tireless efforts that have brought us here for this historic day. It is this 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, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I thank the gentleman for his strong advocacy for the rights of all Americans.

I must begin by saying when you hear people come to the floor and invoke the word ``fairness'' in a debate where they oppose the basic right to vote, they drain that word of all of its meaning.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to the rule proper. I would like to offer some thanks during this rule period. And I would like to say a word about Utah, our very strong partner about whom we hear little because they are so far away.

The other side, after the last vote on this bill, clucked that they had actually stopped our people in the Nation's Capital from getting a vote. Imagine how that was received all around the world. Now they come to the floor with the nerve to object to the procedure.

Mind you, the substance is really what they are after. If in fact the District of Columbia was a largely Republican city, these Members would be on the floor arguing for voting rights for the District of Columbia just as the radical Republican abolitionists gave us the vote, which was then taken from us, and gave us home rule.

I will not yield, sir. The District of Columbia has spent 206 years yielding to people who would deny them the vote. I yield you no ground, not during my time. You have had your say, and your say has been that you think that the people who live in your capital are not entitled to a vote in their House. Shame on you.

Then they want an open rule. They want an open rule so they can deny the vote. The American people will have nothing but praise for the Democratic leadership because the Democratic leaders have found a way to observe two cardinal principles, the principle most basic of all, the right to vote, yes, the principle of fiscal responsibility.

Now, the Democrats could never have thrown the foul ball that was used to delay this bill, and the reason is, of course, that the other side spent 12 years building a deficit and didn't observe the PAYGO rule, and so there would have been no germaneness issue. I don't think that was so smart.

The bill was open to an outrageous attempt to repeal our gun laws. We are a free people. We are entitled to have the same jurisdiction over our gun laws they have, and we are going to insist on it. And the Democratic leaders did not bow to that trick. Instead, they went back and found a way to keep to the principle of finally paying for what we do, as you should have done for more than 10 years.

I would be glad to do it. If the Member doesn't want to face me face to face, I will address the Speaker, you will get the point.

Mr. Speaker, for more than 4 years, thousands of Americans and others around the world have sought this bill and contributed ideas, time and effort, beginning with Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who added to her long and unequivocal push for full rights for District citizens, her personal attention and intervention when it counted most to move this bill forward. And majority leader Steny Hoyer, whose outspoken dedication to our rights overcame procedural malevolence to bring today's bill forward. However, the idea originally came from the Republican side. When I was in the minority, moved by his personal sense of right and wrong, Congressman Tom Davis smartly and doggedly started us down the bipartisan path to equal votes for the District and for Utah.

Judiciary Committee Chair John Conyers, since his election in 1964, has robustly argued that rights for D.C. residents must match their burdens. Henry Waxman, first as ranking member, now as Chair, began leading a principled effort for equal rights for D.C. citizens long before I was elected to Congress.

Utah Governor John Huntsman, and the Utah delegation, Representatives Bishop, Cannon and Matheson, forged a unique partnership on their understanding that Utah and D.C. residents felt the same sense of loss and should obtain these precious rights together.

The local and national civil rights organizations formed themselves into a formidable D.C. voting rights coalition, led by D.C. Vote, which gave the effort, organizational know-how and boundless dedication, and the Leadership Conference for Civil Rights, which has carried D.C. voting rights as a major civil rights cause for decades.

The official international human rights entities abroad have gone on record to ask the United States of America to conform with international law by granting voting rights to the citizens of its capital. My own colleagues of both parties, who passed this bill in committees by overwhelming votes, 29-4, 24-5 and 21-13, especially my Republican colleagues, have joined this effort for the District of Columbia and for Utah out of principle.

The District of Columbia's four home rule mayors and city councils, particularly current Mayor Adrian Fenty and City Council Chair Vincent Gray, and, most especially, the residents of this city, living and dead, have fought for equal citizenship over the ages.

Today, we will get the vote I predict, at least in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I give great praise to a State which is the most Republican State in the Union for having unabashedly and continuously joined with us out of a deep sense of grievance of its own, that its missionaries, temporarily abroad in the service of their church, were not counted in the last census, and, thus, the State was deprived of a seat that they believed they were entitled to.

I would like to quote Governor John Huntsman, the Governor of the State, who came and said, ``I have not extensively studied the constitutionality of the D.C. House Voting Rights Act, but I am impressed and persuaded by the scholarship represented. The people of Utah have expressed outrage over the loss of one congressional seat for the last 6 years. I share their outrage. I can't imagine what it must be like for American citizens to have no representation for over 200 years.''

We will pass this bill today. We will put it in the hands of two Republican Senators from Utah, Senators Hatch and Bennett, and there I believe it will fare well, because the people of Utah want this vote, their vote, as much as we want our vote.

I ask, in testament to that, that two editorials from the Salt Lake Tribune be included for the Record.

[From the Salt Lake Tribune, Mar. 13, 2007]

Utah's 4th Seat: One Quibble Aside, New Bill Would Do the Right Thing

It's back. A bill before Congress would give the District

of Columbia its first voting member of the House of

Representatives and Utah its fourth seat in that body. We

favor it because Utah's rapidly growing population is

entitled to a fourth seat. There are things about the bill

that could be better, but the overriding principles are

right. The 600,000 people of the District of Columbia have a

delegate in the House but she cannot vote on the floor,

That's a cruel irony in a nation that fancies itself a beacon

of republican democracy.

That situation is an accident of constitutional history.

The founders fashioned D.C. so that no state would have the

advantage of being the seat of the federal government. But it

is the states, under the Constitution's language, that elect

U.S. representatives and senators. For more than 200 years,

that circumstance has denied the people of D.C. votes in

Congress.

This bill would rectify that by treating D.C. as a

congressional district for purposes of representation in the

House. At the same time, it would increase the membership of

the House from 435 to 437. One seat would go to D.C. The

second would go to the next state in line for another seat

because of population growth, i.e., Utah. The reason for this

second provision is to preserve the existing partisan balance

in the House. D.C. presumably will elect a Democrat. Utah

presumably will elect a Republican.

Our major quibble with the bill, H.R. 1433, is that it

would have Utah elect its new member-at-large, that is,

statewide, rather than by congressional district, until after

the 2010 census and reapportionment. We believe that is a

mistake because it would allow every Utah voter to vote for

two members of the House while every other voter in the U.S.

could vote for only one.

Besides, the Utah Legislature last year created four equal

congressional districts in anticipation of an earlier version

of this bill which failed in the last Congress.

The at-large proposal would spare Utah's sitting members of

the House from running in special elections to fill the four

new seats. While that is a real hardship in terms of

fundraising, it would be worthwhile to preserve the principle

of equal representation.

The quibble: The bill would have Utah elect its new member

at large, that is, state-wide, rather than by congressional

district, until after the 2010 census and reapportionment.

Mr. Speaker will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I respect the gentleman, who indeed has, as always, given me and the city respect, and I know he understands what it must be like to be in the Congress for 17 years and come to the floor and see people debating your budget and your laws and you can't even vote on them.

I appreciate that the gentleman came to the floor on procedural matters. If the differences between the gentleman and me are on procedure, would not the better side of valor be to allow people on both sides to understand that you favor voting rights; and if your problem is constitutionality, I am sure the gentleman will understand that there is a third branch of government who can decide this matter for us both, particularly since he concedes that opinion on the constitutional question is divided.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman argues about an unprecedented procedure. What about the unprecedented procedure that the other side used to delay this bill, sending the message around the world to delay this bill when it was delayed the last time?

This procedure is legal. Therefore, if you want to use procedure to stop the bill, you should say so. The fact is you have raised a constitutional point. You are not a constitutional scholar, and no Member of this House is, even I, who was a constitutional lawyer.

Therefore, when in doubt about something as precious as the right to vote, when the people we are talking about have paid taxes and have gone to war since the birth of the Republic, surely we should err on the side of encouraging everybody to vote for the bill, send it to the Senate, and let the one institution that can decide constitutional questions, the Supreme Court, make that decision.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Reclaiming my time, it is certainly true that the vote was delayed and it was legal to delay it. By delaying the vote, do you know what the leaders of this House did? They saved the reputation of this House throughout the world. No one knows what would have happened. But no vote on guns occurred.

You don't know what would have happened.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

I can understand why the Members on that side don't want to be spoken to directly.

Nobody knows what would have been the result of that vote. The least of all who know is the other side.

One thing we do know is that it was a perversion. It would have been a perversion to even allow a vote about guns, a vote about guns that would have deprived the District of its own right to decide the issue in order to decide whether it should have a vote.

The decision therefore to pull the bill was legal and the delay saved the principle that we should be voting on one basic right, the basic right that is before us today in the House Voting Rights Act.

I will support that, if the gentleman will support this bill by voting for it on the floor.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Has he agreed therefore to support the bill when in fact the vote is taken?

When the Constitution was written, first of all, Senators weren't popularly elected; they were appointed, not elected, number one. Number two, when the Constitution was written there was a 10-year period during which the District essentially had all the same rights it had always had because the Framers guaranteed to Maryland and Virginia they would not lose those rights. So when the seat moved over and it became the jurisdiction of the Congress, only the Congress could fulfill the mandate now that the city was under its jurisdiction to grant the city the right to vote.

We are asking for the right to vote only in the House. And the Senate, somebody would have had to appoint Senators at the time. So that could not have been done.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.

I rise in the strongest possible opposition to the rule, recognizing full well that there are a wide range of views on the constitutionality of this question.

I have listened to Mr. Arcuri, the gentleman from New York, make his argument that he believes very much in the right to representation, which I obviously completely concur with. And the people of the District of Columbia, I think, are very ably represented here right now by our distinguished friend, my Delegate who represents me very well, since I seem to spend more time here than I do in California, Ms. Eleanor Holmes Norton. But the fact is,

Mr. Speaker, as we look at this question, Thomas Jefferson was the one who said ``Two thinking men can be given the exact same set of facts and draw different conclusions.''

And so I recognize that there are some who come down on the side of believing that it is constitutional for us to proceed with this. I read the Constitution in a little different way. When I see those two words, the ``several States'' as being the criterion for representation here, or at least one of the criteria for representation here in the House of Representatives, it says to me that there need to be changes to the U.S. Constitution if in fact we are going to proceed with the action that the majority in this House, the majority leadership in this House, wants to take on.

So I recognize that there are disparate views on this, Mr. Speaker. The thing that troubles me most is the procedure around which we are considering this measure. And what I would like to do, I would like to engage my good friend from New York, Mr. Arcuri, the manager of the rule, in a colloquy, if I might, just to consider this procedure around which we are going to be debating this question.

Actually, from what I can tell, in our analysis of this rule, we are blazing completely new ground here when it comes procedurally to this institution. I have heard a lot of criticism over the years of the tenure that I had as chairman of the Rules Committee, and one of the points that I would like to make is it wasn't really about what we did, but it was about promises that were made about fairness, promises that were made about the way every Member of this House, Democrat and Republican, was going to have an opportunity to participate.

So the question that I have is, I know that under regular order, if the House agrees to a straight motion to recommit the bill to the committee, or such a motion with instructions that the committee promptly report it back with an amendment, the bill then, when that motion to recommit prevails, does in fact go back to the committee and it must naturally assume that the committee will follow the House's instructions. And I wonder if the gentleman could tell me if that is in fact going to be the case under our consideration of this rule that we are going to be voting on, the one that we are debating right now.

The rule contains two motions to recommit, one for each bill.

My question is whether or not the success of a motion to recommit would in fact send this measure back to committee, or would it in fact do something that has never, ever been done before, based on my reading of the rule: Would it in fact kill the bill itself?

Yes. But the point is if, for the first time ever, this rule actually takes a motion to recommit, Mr. Speaker, and it basically submits it to be laid on the table potentially, the bill to be laid on the table, therefore preventing the House from having the opportunity to work its will, never before in the history of this institution, Mr. Speaker, has this kind of sleight of hand been used. We know, Mr. Speaker, why it is that we are here considering this measure again. It is very simply due to the fact that a bipartisan majority, Republicans leading with Democrats voting along in support of the motion to recommit on this bill, led to what is clearly sleight of hand, undermining the long-standing tradition.

We, as the minority, on 47 different occasions in the years leading up to our winning the majority in 1994, were denied the opportunity have a motion to recommit. We were denied that time and time again, Mr. Speaker. Not every time, but we were often denied it.

So that is the reason that we made a decision when we won the majority in 1994 that we were going to guarantee that the minority had a right to offer a motion to recommit, at least one bite at the apple, and in most cases a substitute; so at least two bites at the apple in most cases. But we very, very firmly made that commitment to the motion to recommit.

Now, what is it that's happened? We lost the majority in last November's election.

I will yield in just a moment when I am done with my statement. I know the gentleman has plenty of time. I look forward to yielding to the gentleman, but I would like to explain why it is that we're here and how outrageous this rule is.

What happened last November, when we lost the majority, we got ourselves in a position where we figured, gosh, we will have only one bite at the apple, only one opportunity to allow the majority of the House to come together and address these issues. And what happened, Mr. Speaker? What happened is very clear. On seven occasions so far in the 110th Congress, the House has worked its will. A bipartisan majority of Republicans and Democrats came together and succeeded in passing motions to recommit, including on a District of Columbia bill that we are addressing here.

So what is it that happened? Because of the fact that the Democratic majority leadership, not a majority of the House, but the majority leadership decided they did not want us to do this, they have resorted to a procedure which unfortunately creates a scenario whereby if the House succeeds in passing a motion to recommit, the opportunity to have a bill laid on the table, which basically kills the bill completely, is put before us. And I think, Mr. Speaker, that that is a very, very unfortunate precedent that the new majority is looking at, and they are doing it simply to subvert the will of this House.

And with that, Mr. Speaker, I'm happy to yield to my friend.

If I could reclaim my time, since I'm managing the time here, Mr. Speaker, I could reclaim it by saying I have already spoken about the fact that I recognize Mr. Arcuri's belief that this is a constitutional bill, and I share his commitment to fairness of the bill itself.

I am not here talking about the bill. I am here talking about the procedure, which is blatantly unfair, that is undermining the opportunity for this House to work its will on this issue. When I yielded to the gentleman, it was to talk about our procedure here. I think that it is very, very unfortunate that for the first time in the over 200-year history of this institution, we are going to be taking this very precious right of a motion to recommit and killing legislation.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.

Would the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, let me just say at the outset that I am happy to yield to my friend from the District of Columbia at any time whatsoever, and I want to once again praise her representation and the passion that she shows in her commitment to this issue.

As I said, I spent a great deal of time residing here in the District of Columbia, and I feel she very ably represents the District of Columbia and I am proud to have her as a colleague, Mr. Speaker.

Now, let me say this. I feel that the passion that she has shown in arguing in behalf of the legislation itself is something that I recognize and revere.

I said to Mr. Arcuri, Mr. Speaker, that I believe there can be recognition that there are diverse views on this question. I have come down on the side of recognizing that those words in the Constitution, ``the several States,'' mean that if we are going to do this, we should do it through a different route than the one that we are pursuing.

I am happy to yield to my friend, the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I will say that obviously it appears, and the gentlewoman has already stated what she believes the outcome will be in this House; it be will be in the hands of those two Senators of whom she just referred, and we will see what happens, whether it is within the first branch of government or within the third branch of government. Obviously, the second branch of government will have a role in determining this.

The argument that I believe needs to be made, and Mr. Sessions just touched on this and has been arguing it throughout his management of this, the passion that is shown for the rights of the District of Columbia are very, very important, and the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia, Mr. Speaker, recognizes those and represents them extraordinarily well.

But an equal passion for the Constitution of the United States and, Mr. Speaker, an equal passion for the job that Mr. Sessions and I and Mr. Arcuri and the other members of the Rules Committee have for democracy in this institution is something that is very, very important.

I would say, Mr. Speaker, to my friend from the District of Columbia, who argues so strongly on behalf of the need for representation here in the House of Representatives for the District of Columbia, that if we look at this rule, which is subverting 200 years of precedent in this institution, by saying that if a motion to recommit on either of these bills in fact prevails, the motion is laid on the table, never before in the history of this institution, Mr. Speaker, has this been done.

So I have to say that we have an equal passion for our commitment to the precedents and the responsibility of the greatest deliberative body known to man; and for that reason, Mr. Speaker, we are troubled with the procedure around which we are about to move ahead with this very important debate.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

I thank my friend for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, let me just say the thing that is most troubling is the decision to pull this bill was not a decision made by the minority. It was made by the majority leadership when that happened before this break. The reason that decision was made was that there was a sense that a majority in this House, a majority in this House might have been supportive of that motion to recommit that we were about to vote on.

Never before, never before had we seen, as general debate, as the debate had been completed, all of a sudden the bill was pulled from the floor.