District of Columbia Fair and Equal House Voting Rights Act of 2007

Mr. Speaker, I have initiated this Special Order on behalf of the people of the District of Columbia who are second per capita in the Federal taxes they pay to support our Federal Government; yes, including this House and Senate and all the Armed Forces and our exquisite government throughout the United States, and who have fought and died in every war since the establishment of the Republic. In their name, I come forward.

I came forward Tuesday in a 5-minute Special Order simply to inform the House that I had just filed my vote, my bill, that is to say, refiled the bill that Representative Tom Davis and I had filed and hoped to pass in the 109th Congress, the Fair and Equal D.C. House Voting Rights Act. I came in gratitude to my own party. I came also in some frustration. It is impossible to hide that frustration.

I represent people who have been frustrated for 200 years and don't want one single moment more of frustration by having a second-class Member of the House of Representatives while paying first-class taxes and dying and fighting in every war that our country has ever fought, including this war where lives continue to be lost in such large numbers and for what cause. They do not ask, they simply fight like other Americans.

I had hoped to be able to vote on the very bills that have been in discussion here this week, particularly the bills on which Democrats ran and perhaps were responsible for our capture of the House. And my deepest regret was that my Committee of the Whole vote that was taken from me when the Democrats came to power was not automatically put back into the rules.

To his great credit, the majority leader indicates that he intends to introduce a provision to that effect. And I know I speak for myself and all of the delegates when I thank him about thinking about us and about how deeply we feel about that vote. For myself, I have come to the floor to say that I have had to pass that vote. I won't get to vote on the six items. I have been pleased to be able to speak on them as usual.

I am at this point moving forward to where I have been instructed by the people of the United States. They don't even want the Committee of the Whole vote confused with what they are entitled to, and that is the full House vote.

Mr. Speaker, before I go further, I have a number of people I must thank. The bill I introduced today was not a bill that I authored. It was originated by my good friend who also lives in the region, Representative Tom Davis of Virginia, who has grown up in the region and has seen the District of Columbia without a vote and believed that at least a vote on the House floor was virtually mandated by any Congress controlled by either party. He was in the majority and he initiated this idea because it came to his attention that the most Republican State in the Union had missed getting full voting rights, were chafing at that because they believed they were entitled and they had gone all the way to the Supreme Court to get them, and believed that this provided out what turns out to be the case, probably the only opportunity the District of Columbia will have to get its full voting rights in a very long time.

I want to thank the majority leader who lives in the region who has been one of the most steadfast proponents of D.C. voting rights and never gives up and who always stands with us and to whom we will be eternally grateful.

I have special thanks to Henry Waxman, the Chair of the Government Reform Committee, who has been the Democratic leader of the bill that I bring forward today for all 4 years which we have worked on it. He is always a strong supporter of District home rule and for District of Columbia voting rights. He was here years before I came to Congress, and I am second only to him in supporting these issues. He is one of the great problem-solvers of the Congress, and he has been instrumental in bringing this bill forward. It is impossible to believe it could have happened without Henry Waxman.

I want to thank the Democratic and Republican members of the Government Reform Committee, who in the 109th Congress literally gave us virtually a tie vote of Republicans and Democrats favoring this bill: 15 Democrats, 14 Republicans.

I want to thank Representative John Conyers, a founder of the Congressional Black Caucus, the dean of the caucus, who has carried this idea again long before I ever thought of coming to Congress.

At the same time, I want to thank my colleagues in the Congressional Black Caucus who since the founding days of the caucus have given D.C. voting rights a priority, who believe with me that it is an issue of discrimination based on race, and for that matter on location. I say that and will explain it later because of the origins of our voteless condition.

I want to thank Senator Joe Lieberman, who with many other Democratic Senators in the Congress have carried my bill for full voting rights for the residents of the District of Columbia, the No Taxation Without Representation Act. We have reluctantly but with great realism embraced the House-only act because we understand the spirit of the Congress, that it has virtually never acted all at once to do what it is supposed to do. So we know that we have to proceed in an incremental fashion.

I must thank my good colleagues from the State of Utah who have

worked hand in glove with me every step of the way: Jim Matheson, the only Democrat in that delegation; Rob Bishop and Chris Cannon who have thrown aside party lines and thrust themselves into this bill from the beginning.

I want to thank the two Senators from Utah, Orrin Hatch and Bob Bennett, who sent word to their leadership that they were prepared to have this bill come to the floor at the end of the 109th Congress for unanimous passage.

That would have happened, in my view, because the traditions of the Senate are that if a bill affects only one State, as a matter of Senatorial courtesy, the Senate defers to those Senators. It is heartbreaking that the 109th Congress punted the bill and robbed us of the opportunity to have that Senate vote in December.

I have to thank the Governor of Utah, who came here to testify for the bill and has worked valiantly with the Democratic minority in Utah as well as with his own party.

I do want to read from the letter that the Senators sent asking for the bill to be considered right away because, you see, the bipartisanship we must preserve in this bill. They said in their letter to their leaders, Leader Frist and Leader Reid, a letter signed by Senator Bennett, Senator Hatch and Senator Lieberman: ``It is urgent that Congress fulfill its obligation to provide the voting representation that Utah is entitled to as a result of changes to its population. Likewise, we recognize that the 600,000-plus Americans who live in the District of Columbia are without a voting Member of Congress. No doubt the citizens of Utah and the District face different challenges in greatly differing parts of the country and with greatly differing lifestyles, but they share a commonality: the right to be represented in our country's legislature.''

If ever there was a win/win piece of legislation, I think most Members would agree this is it. Certainly the American people agree: 82 percent of Americans support equal voting rights for the District of Columbia in Congress. That is 82 percent, up 10 percentage points in just 5 years.

This professional poll shows some astounding results because then you want to look and see, is this piled up all on one side of the country or one grouping or one race, and you see the same thing throughout. Once people realize you pay Federal income taxes, and if you go to war the way we do, if the blood of the United States runs in your veins, you give up on the question of whether there should be voting representation in the Congress of the United States.

All of the figures are in the high seventies or eighties. Northeast, Midwest. The South is the highest, 84 percent. Or if you look, at have a member of the military, they are 82 percent. These are people who believe in voting rights for the District of Columbia. Regularly attend religious services, 82 percent.

Ages 55-plus, 82 percent; 18 to 34, 87 percent ages. We can find no variation in these figures, and I don't think you will find any variation anywhere in the world.

This is the only country in the world where the residents of the capital do not have the right to vote in their national legislature. You can imagine why there is such great impatience in the District of Columbia. Imagine not having voting rights. Putting aside the taxes for a moment, when in the Vietnam War you had more casualties than 10 States, when in World War II you had more casualties than four States, and in World War I you had more casualties than three States, and in the Korean War you had more casualties than eight States.

Let me finally say a word about the bill, and I am so pleased to see other Members of Congress come to join me in this Special Order.

My thanks again to the originator, the author of this bill. As it turns out, he has given us the only chance we will ever have. The Congress of the United States in House and Senate has never increased its number except on a nonpartisan basis. Democrats have never got it by themselves, Republicans have never gotten it by themselves.

Everybody remembers Alaska and Hawaii. You want to know how deep this goes, slave States couldn't get in unless a free State could. That is the history of our country. I regret that there has to be that kind of equivalence, but I want everybody to know: Utah somehow disjoined from this bill kills it. So I thank Utah for giving us the only chance we will ever have, particularly since I am not sure that we will have another State ever that missed it by the skin of their teeth and would be willing to take this risk with us.

This bill was 4 years in the making after Mr. Davis introduced it. My thanks to him will be eternal because he was gracious in working with me when I wanted matters added to the bill. For example, I said to him, I could not even sponsor the bill unless it also went to the Committee on the Judiciary because that is the committee of jurisdiction. And it was Mr. Davis who convinced Mr. Sensenbrenner to allow us a markup.

I said that there had to be an increase of two seats so no Member would think that they would lose a seat because we were gaining a seat. And I asked for something that was purely symbolic but important to the residents of the District of Columbia: I asked Mr. Davis who was then chairman of the committee if there could be a vote on my bill, the No Taxation Without Representation Act, so my people will know that I will never give up until they have full citizenship even if Congress requires us to do it step by step.

But that is how we got home rule. Indeed, now we have the atrocious situation where my budget and laws have to sit here before we can spend our own money. So everything happens in this House incrementally.

Mr. Speaker, Members on the floor who have been particularly gracious to me, always with me when I needed help, and I have needed help a lot as a Member from the District of Columbia with no delegation and no Senators, and some of them have come down in order to indicate their concern about our denial of voting rights and to say their piece. I could not be more grateful to them.

I am told that the first to arrive was the gentlelady from the Virgin Islands, who is in perhaps not a comparable position because I am sure that the people of the Virgin Islands are glad not to have to pay taxes to the Government of the United States, but who indeed represents American citizens as free and full as any others in the House; and I am pleased she has come down this evening, Mrs. Christensen of the Virgin Islands.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlelady for coming forward.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Butterfield) who represents the district where my own mother was born and raised.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Mr. Butterfield, the gentleman from North Carolina, in memory of my mother, Vela Lynch Holmes, who came to the District of Columbia and died at 90 here, while her daughter was still trying, in the name of my father's side of the family, the native Washingtonians, to make us all first class citizens, the way finally you are in North Carolina. Thank you, sir.

I would like to yield now to my good friend who came in my class with me, the gentlelady from California, who 16 years ago came. I think we tripled or quadrupled the number of African American women in the Congress then. I know that the gentlewoman from California won't let this House have any peace until there is justice for the District of Columbia.

Mr. Speaker, this was classic Maxine Waters. The gentlelady is as gracious as she has always been militant in the pursuit of justice. Ms. Waters one session was on the floor with me for 10 hours on the DC Appropriations as people came forward to try to attach things to our appropriation. So she has been a stalwart friend that has been by my side when I most needed her. I particularly appreciate those remarks from a classmate who came with me to the Congress.

The next to arrive was my good friend from Illinois, Mr. Davis, a very good friend who serves with me on the Government Reform Committee, who I believe is going to chair the subcommittee on which I serve. He certainly has been a leader on issues on that committee and one of the greatly admired Members of the House, the gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Davis.

(Mr. DAVIS of Illinois asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

I just want to thank the gentleman for the kindness and graciousness of his remarks. This is his signature in this House. Every time he opens his mouth, he takes command of an issue and captures our attention. That he has given his attention to us in the District of Columbia is a matter for which we are deeply grateful.

I would like to yield now to the gentlewoman from Houston, Texas, whose energy and intelligence and zeal for justice is known by every Member of this House. I am pleased now to yield to the gentlewoman from Texas, Representative Sheila Jackson-Lee.

McMillan.

I want to thank the gentlewoman. The selfless spirit of her remarks, the intelligence of her remarks is nothing new in this body. Indeed, it reminds me of the same spirit she has shown when our own citizens from New Orleans came in huge numbers to her great city and they took them in, because they were Americans.

I also want to thank her for citing and reminding us that Martin Luther King's birthday is coming up and we are all going to be somewhere celebrating. Well, Martin Luther King would be here saying to this House, particularly to the Democratic majority who has spearheaded this issue for decades now, that now is the moment. Do it now. That is what he said when he was on the Mall. Do it now. Freedom now.

Indeed, the new Mayor of the District of Columbia, Adrian Fenty, who has been particularly active on voting rights, has indicated to me that he will be dedicating January 15 here in the District to DC voting rights and kicking off a campaign on January 15 that he calls Give DC The Vote Now Day in memory of Martin Luther King, who would not want his day used in such trivialities as simple ceremonies.

I also want to thank the gentlewoman for her reference to Mr. McMillan. Because the fact is the reason the District hadn't gotten home rule had to do with race and only with race. Mr. McMillan was a Southern Democrat who stood in the way, because beginning in the late 1950s the majority population of the District of Columbia was African Americans. So race has always stood in the way of our full empowerment. Today, it is as likely to be party. That is why we are grateful to the State of Utah for stepping forward.

I don't mean to say that race is gone from this issue. Residents of the District of Columbia, two-thirds of them African American, see this issue as an up-and-down civil rights issue. They are the only African Americans in the United States that don't have their full civic rights, and they know it, and they treat this issue this way.

I treat race as a simple proxy for party, because we are a big city, recognizing as I do that I know full well what second-class citizenship means. And you have to understand that the reason this is important for the District is not only was it a majority black city beginning in the late 1950s, but it was a segregated city for most of its existence. The schools were segregated. Even when I went to the schools in the District of Columbia. Downtown was segregated. And that was all at a time when Democrats in particular ran this House.

That is why this issue knows no party and why it has huge racial connotations in our country and in the District, and that is why this is a major issue and has been for decades for the NAACP, the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, and civil rights organizations across the United States.

They indicate that voting rights for the District of Columbia is second only on their agenda to what this House and Senate achieved on a bipartisan basis last year, and that is the reauthorization of the 1965 Voting Rights Act.

I want to say that, just by point of clarity, I introduced the same bill, essentially, that I had introduced before. That bill had a map in it that had been approved by Democrats and Republicans because Mr. Sensenbrenner, then the Chair of the Judiciary Committee, at the last minute said that he would not accept a compromise that we had all fashioned, that Utah, that our leadership, on both sides agreed to, and that was that there be an at-large seat so there would be no redistricting. The redistricting issue had been a very thorny issue because there is only one Democrat in Utah. He has been the target of gerrymandering. Nobody wanted that on the table any longer. And therefore, we came forward with a compromise of an at-large seat. Mr. Sensenbrenner insisted upon redistricting.

Let me say, the people of the District of Columbia don't care one way or the other, whether it is at-large or redistricting the at-large. The redistricted seat there apparently is perfectly satisfactory to both sides. Whatever is easy, whatever gets me to sit in this seat as something other than the way I sit today, as a second class citizen, is acceptable to us. What we want is the vote, and we want our voting rights in the 110th Congress.

I do want to say that we haven't given up on full citizenship, and we never intend to. But we recognize the way in which the House has always operated, and that is incrementally.

It was not until 1967 that we incrementally began to give this, move this District toward having self government, would you believe. It had no mayor. It had no city council because it had been governed since the 19th century by three commissioners appointed by the President of the United States; 800,000 people then living as a straight out colony in their own Nation's Capital.

Lyndon Johnson abolished the commission and appointed a council. Then, in 1968, they gave the District the right to vote for their own board of education. Then, in 1970, the District got the right to vote for a delegate. And my good predecessor, a man who fought valiantly for our full rights, Walter Fauntroy, became the first Delegate. And then, finally, in 1973, the Home Rule Act itself was enacted, and the District got the right to elect its own city council and its own mayor. And notice, that is 32 years ago only that your Capital has even had the right to self government.

All of this is a real scar on our democracy. The scar has to be taken off of this House and can be this year; and we ask that that be exactly what the House does.

We remind the House that change for the District of Columbia only came at the Civil War, a true indication of the way race has decided matters in the District of Columbia.

My own people came to this city through my great grandfather, a runaway slave. He was in Washington in 1862 when Congress abolished slavery here.

But it is very interesting to note, when you see where the parties stand, that in 1848, when this House was controlled by the Democrats, the Democrats did give the District some home

rule. But it gave it the right to have its own Board of Assessors, this is like a council, and voting rights to all white male voters.

It took the radical Republicans, the abolitionist Republicans, to grant black males the right to vote, and that was in 1867. That was the proud history of the Republican Party. And we will never forget the roots of that party, Abraham Lincoln, the first Republican President, the President that abolished slavery, first in the District of Columbia, then of course, led our country to the abolition of slavery nationwide.

It was in 1878 that this notion of government, not by this self government that had been set up for white males by the Democrats, that the Republicans had converted so that everybody who could vote in the United States could then vote.

By the way, you notice women were not given the right to vote then, but they didn't have the right to vote anywhere.

But what happened in 1878, when Reconstruction came forward, when the reaction to the Civil War came forward, then we had the Congress, obviously, in the hands of Democrats again, providing that the District of Columbia be governed, not by a self government, as had been allowed, but by these Presidentially appointed commissioners who were, in fact, the government of the District of Columbia until 1974.

Mr. Speaker, occasionally you will hear some opposition to our bill based on the Constitution. Every other day somebody raises a constitutional issue about some bill that comes to the floor. And we concede that there is some division of opinion on whether or not Congress can give the District the right to vote through the Constitution, or whether it would take a constitutional amendment, as has been tried in the past, but the requisite number of States did not also ratify.

On the basis of very respectable constitutional opinion, and we are certain that the bill is constitutional under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, Congress has full plenary power over all matters relating to the District of Columbia. We are certain that Congress can have the right because we are certain that that is what the framers intended.

When the Constitution was ratified in 1789, it clearly contemplated that the vote would, in fact, be enjoyed by the people of the District of Columbia. Everybody lived in a state then, including the people of the District of Columbia. But notably, the citizens living on the land designated by the Constitution, in the Constitution itself, as the District, continued to have voting rights until 1801, because that land had been given to the Federal Government by Maryland and Virginia.

When 1801 occurred, and the land came under the total control of the Congress, only Congress could step forward and say, now that you are under our jurisdiction, we just want to assure that you still, you have not lost your voting rights by becoming the Nation's Capital. And the people of the District of Columbia so petitioned, and Congress failed to act. Therein lies the fatal flaw. Congress did not act. But you certainly can't blame that on the Framers.

Imagine, would Maryland and Virginia have conceded the land to create the District of Columbia if they thought they were disenfranchising their own citizens? Impossible. And the Framers themselves indicated that everybody in the United States would have their rights. So we are quite confident that the bill is constitutional, although you will hear words to the contrary from time to time.

We are also confident that if we were to decide to use the at-large seat, as opposed to the map that is agreeable now, that that would be constitutional because every voter in the State of Utah, only for a very short time, because it then could revert, as the State desires, to the present system from an at-large system; but every voter in Utah would have the same equal right with no dilution of that right to elect this at-large member for such period as the State chose to have it.

These issues have been thoroughly vetted, and we have constitutional authority that I think the House would find persuasive. And I ask to be able to enter into the Record the testimony of Kenneth Starr, who testified to the constitutionality of the bill. This constitutional lawyer, respected by all for his constitutional background, even as he is regarded as controversial, perhaps that controversial side of his career helps to explain that this bill must be constitutional. And I thank Mr. Starr, and will submit that for the Record.

[From the Washington Post, Sept. 17, 2006]

Congress Has the Authority to Do Right by D.C.

(By Kenneth Starr and Patricia M. Wald)

More than 40 years ago, the Supreme Court declared that

``no right is more precious in a free country than that of

having a voice in the election of those who make the laws

under which, as good citizens, we must live.'' And yet, for

more than 200 years the citizens of the District have been

denied this right because they have no voting representation

in Congress. To its credit, Congress is taking steps to begin

correcting this longstanding injustice.

Specifically, the House Government Reform Committee has

approved, and the House Judiciary Committee is considering, a

bill that would give D.C. residents the right to full voting

representation in the House. While conferring this right is

surely the right thing to do, a legitimate question has been

raised concerning Congress's authority to confer the right by

simple legislation, rather than through constitutional

amendment. We have carefully considered this question and

believe for three reasons the bill is within Congress's

authority: It is consistent with fundamental constitutional

principles; it is consistent with the language of Congress's

constitutional power; and it is consistent with the governing

legal precedents.

First, interpretation of Congress's Article I legislative

authority should always be guided by the fundamental

principles upon which the nation and the Constitution were

founded. Those principles include a commitment to a

republican form of government and to the proposition that the

laws enacted by the legislature should be based on the

consent of the governed. There is nothing in our

Constitution's history or its fundamental principles

suggesting that the Framers intended to deny the precious

right to vote to those who live in the capital of the great

democracy they founded.

Second, Congress's specific power over the District of

Columbia is one of the broadest of all its powers. In the

words of the Constitution, ``Congress shall have power . . .

to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever''

over the District. In a 1984 case decided by the U.S. Court

of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, on which we both sat, Judge

Abner Mikva noted that through this constitutional provision,

the Framers gave Congress ``a unique and sovereign power''

over the District. In that same case, Judge (now Justice)

Antonin Scalia wrote that the broad language of the power

gave Congress ``extraordinary and plenary'' power over our

nation's capital. And in another case, that same court held

that this broad power gave Congress authority to ``provide

for the general welfare of citizens within the District of

Columbia by any and every act of legislation which it may

deem conducive to that end.'' It is hard to imagine a

broader, more comprehensive congressional power than this;

and it is also hard to imagine that the power could not be

used to advance a fundamental principle of our Constitution--

that the right to vote should be extended to all citizens.

Finally, and equally important, the most analogous legal

precedent addressing Congress's authority over the District

confirms that Congress can act now to give the vote to D.C.

residents. That precedent concerned the fact that Article III

of the Constitution confers on federal courts jurisdiction to

hear suits brought by citizens of different states against

each other. But the Constitution did not give any such

express jurisdiction over suits brought by or against

citizens of the District of Columbia. As a result, Congress,

relying on its broad Article I power over the District of

Columbia, remedied that unfairness through legislation that

extended the right to District residents. In a 1949 case

called National Mutual Insurance Co. v. Tidewater, the

Supreme Court upheld that extension and also said that

Congress was entitled to great deference in its determination

that it had power to address this inequity. The logic of this

case applies here, and supports Congress's determination to

give the right to vote for a representative to citizens of

the District of Columbia, even though the Constitution itself

gives that right only to citizens of states.

It is not a surprise that our Constitution, ratified in

1789, contemplated that the right to vote would be enjoyed

only by ``the people of the several states.'' After all, in

1789, all U.S. citizens lived in a state. It was not until

1801, when the process Congress authorized by statute in 1791

to create the District out of lands ceded by Virginia and

Maryland was completed, that District residents lost their

federal voting rights. There is no reason to believe the

Framers intended for this to happen. And in any case they

gave Congress power to address the problem. Congress has

initiated a process to do so, and we urge it to quickly

complete the task. As George Washington said in his first

inaugural address, the American people are entrusted with

``the preservation of the sacred fire of liberty and the

destiny of the republican model of government.'' It is time

to extend that model to the citizens of the nation's capital.

There might be some opposition based on the notion that

Utah gets one more electoral vote if they get a vote. Now, mind you, Utah is going to get that at some point anyway, probably in the near future. But there is some concern that Utah might get that vote now. And we have the kind of situation that people most fear ever since the 2000 election, that there would be some kind of tie or some kind of dispute; we would have no longer a tied number of electors from Democratic and Republican States; and then you would have Utah with one more vote.

Well, this is an issue that we asked a nonpartisan group about that doesn't think, that has a different view of how the present system operates in any case. The nonpartisan group is called Fair Vote, the Center For Voting and Democracy. It is not affiliated with the District of Columbia or with any party.

Apparently, it believes that the national popular vote plan for President is how we should proceed. So they certainly are not making a case for us in any particular way.

But it is important to note what they say about our bill and whether our bill could, in fact, result in a crisis based on the fact that Utah got one new electoral vote. And I am quoting: ``Our estimation of the odds of the District of Columbia Fair and Equal Voting Rights Act directly contributing to a Republican victory in the 2008 Presidential race is,'' they say the odds are, ``approximately 400-1,'' or, in other words, one chance in 1,600 presidential elections.

I want the Member to stand up who would, on this scintilla of a chance, prefer to see us go without the only chance we have to get a vote now or in the foreseeable future.

I want to thank the House for affording me this time, and the time of the Members who have been gracious enough to come and speak on this issue this evening. It is time that, for us, has been invaluable, simply to let the Members of the House know how deeply we feel that the time is on overtime to grant the people of the District of Columbia their House vote now, in this Congress, the 110th Congress.

Mr. Conyers, may I pay tribute to you? It gives me such a privilege to be able to come to this floor with you as the chairperson of the House Judiciary Committee, along with the ranking member, who is a friend and colleague from Texas. But it is a special honor, and it humbles many of us, because a lot of us were not here for the debate on the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voter Rights Act of 1965. Many Americans think that that bill only pertains and helps people of color, but really what it does is it restores that legislation, the value and the preciousness of the right to vote for all Americans. I am gratified that Chairman Conyers, who has a history with restoring the rights of Americans to vote, now finds himself on the floor in the doorway of history to be able to reaffirm the Constitution.

And I heard my good friend, and I am glad that you will hear from my colleague from Texas, Congressman Al Green, who spent a few days on the bench and I think would recognize a Constitution when he would see it. But I think this is important, because if the American people are listening, there is some suggestion, what kind of irreverent actions are occurring on this floor? Why are we ignoring the Constitution? And I take great umbrage with that. I am sensitive to that. My very fabric of my existence is embedded in the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendment. I want the Constitution to be cherished, and I want it to be right.

So let me just recount for you why we can move from one section to the next, and it relates to the constitutionality of what we are doing. And I would only hope that my friends would not be rejecting this bill because, in fact, it is the District of Columbia. And let me remind America that Utah is given an opportunity for its citizens to be represented.

But in 1820, the Supreme Court held that Congress could impose Federal taxes on the District, and it was related to the provision in here that says

representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States. So we tax them based upon language in the Constitution that they equal the States.

Then in 1889, the Supreme Court found that the constitutional prohibition against State laws that interfere with commerce applies to States and the District of Columbia, again equating the District of Columbia to States.

And then in 1934, the Supreme Court found that Congress could treat the District of Columbia as a State.

So in the Constitution it says that: The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second year by the people of several States.

But it also says that this Congress has jurisdiction in clause 17 under section 8 over the District of Columbia, and that is what we are doing here today. We are correcting a wrong, an ill. We are correcting a disease. We are equating this city to the rights of Iraqis, who are now able to vote for all of those they want to vote for, albeit it is in a troubled situation.

And so I would simply commend my colleagues to this, and to suggest that there was something wrong in the rule for not asking for an expedited Supreme Court review, my friends, the Supreme Court will be able to deliberate on this particular legislation in due time and be able to render a decision and expedited request warrants or suggests there should be a crisis. There was not an expedited request in the election of 2000, and the Supreme Court decided it in 4 or 5 days. For me, that was an emergency.

Let me thank the gentleman for his inquiry. He made a very good point: can't the courts reconcile the issues between the two parties on their own expedited time. They can. And that is the example I used with the issue in the election of 2000. As you well know, that case, Gore v. Bush, went to the United States Supreme Court on their own expediting, and a decision was made between four or five days.

My friends, this is a smoke-and-mirror issue. We welcome the Supreme Court's review. But today, we are holding up the Constitution, and I hope that as we hold it up, we will reflect upon those whose blood has been shed on behalf of this country, that we are giving them the right to vote legally, and under the Constitution.

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 1433, the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2007, and thank the chairman of the Judiciary Committee for his leadership in shepherding this important piece of legislation to the floor. Today we remove a stain that has blighted our Nation for more than 200 years of shame and correct an injustice to the citizens of the District of Columbia.

H.R. 1433 would permanently expand the U.S. House of Representatives from 435 to 437 seats, providing a new, at-large seat to Utah and a vote to the District of Columbia. Based on the 2000 Census, Utah is the State next in line to enlarge its congressional delegation. The bill does not give the District statehood, nor does it give the District representation in the Senate. Rather, in H.R. 1433 Congress is simply treating the District as a congressional district for the purposes of granting full House representation, as it can pursuant to the grant of plenary power over the District of Columbia conferred by the Constitution in article I, section 8, clause 17.

At the outset, let me address the claim that H.R. 1433 is a weak foundation upon which to base the District's voting rights in the House because it is a statutory rather a constitutionally based remedy. The argument should be rejected for the simple reason that it makes the perfect the enemy of the good. It is like asking a person to remain homeless while she saves to buy a house even though she has enough money to rent an apartment.

Madam Speaker, let us not lose sight of one indisputable and shameful fact: Nearly 500,000 people living in the District of Columbia lack direct voting representation in the House of Representatives and Senate. Residents of the District of Columbia serve in the military, pay billions of dollars in Federal taxes each year, and assume other responsibilities of U.S. citizenship. For over 200 years, the District has been denied voting representation in Congress--the entity that has ultimate authority over all aspects of the city's legislative, executive, and judicial functions.

Madam Speaker, if a person can be called upon to pay Federal taxes and serve in the Armed Forces of the United States, then he or she should at least have the opportunity to vote for a representative who could at least cast a symbolic vote in this Chamber on critical matters facing our Nation--issues like war and peace, equality and justice.

Madam Speaker, taxation without representation is tyranny. It is unconscionable that more than a half million American citizens are being unconscionably denied a vote and a voice in the most important legislative body in the world.

As a supporter of freedom, democracy, and equality, I believe that it is long overdue for the citizens of the District of Columbia to have a Representative in Congress who can vote on the vital legislation considered in this body.

Madam Speaker, it is wrong that we must be reminded daily by license plates in the District of Columbia that ``Taxation without representation is tyranny.'' The people in Boston felt so strongly about this in 1775 that they rebelled in Boston Harbor, launching the ``Boston Tea Party.''

The principle that political authority derives from the consent of the government is no less applicable when it comes to the District of Columbia. Let us be clear. There is no dispute that hundreds of thousands of American citizens reside in the District of Columbia. We all agree that universal suffrage is the hallmark of a democratic regime, of which the United States is the world's leading exemplar.

None of us believes it is fair that citizens of the District of Columbia pay Federal taxes, risk life and limb fighting wars abroad to protect American democracy and extend the blessings of liberty to people living in foreign lands. In short, there is no moral reason to deny the citizens of the District of Columbia the right to full representation in Congress. The only question is whether Congress has the will and the constitutional authority to do so. As I will discuss, Congress has always had the constitutional authority. For the last 12 years, we have not had the will; but now we do.

Congress Can Grant Voting Rights to the District Under the District

Clause

As Professor Dinh argued in his powerful testimony before this Committee, Congress has ample constitutional authority to enact H.R. 1433 under the Constitution's ``District Clause.'' Art. I, Sec. 8, cl. 17. The District Clause empowers Congress to ``exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District'' and thus grants Congress plenary and exclusive authority to legislate all matters concerning the District. The text, history and structure of the Constitution, as well as judicial decisions and pronouncements in analogous or related contexts, confirms that this broad legislative authority extends to the granting of congressional voting rights for District residents.

The District Clause, which has been described by no less a constitutional authority as Judge Kenneth Starr as ``majestic in its scope,'' gives Congress plenary and exclusive power to legislate for the District. Courts have held that the District Clause is ``sweeping and inclusive in character'' and gives Congress ``extraordinary and plenary power'' over the District. It empowers Congress to legislate within the District for ``every proper purpose of government.'' Congress therefore possesses ``full and unlimited jurisdiction to provide for the general welfare of citizens within the District of Columbia by any and every act of legislation which it may deem conducive to that end,'' subject, of course, to the negative prohibitions of the Constitution.

Although, the District is not a State for purposes of Congress's article I, section 2, clause 1, which states that Members of the House are chosen ``by the people of the several States,'' this fact is not dispositive of Congress's authority under the District Clause to give residents of the District the same rights as citizens of a State. Since 1805, the Supreme Court has recognized that Congress has the authority to treat the District like a State, and Congress has repeatedly exercised this authority. No court has ever sustained a challenge to Congress's exercise of its power under the District Clause.

Two related Supreme Court cases illustrate this point. In Hepburn v. Ellzey, 6 U.S. 445 (1805), the Court held that the diversity jurisdiction provision of article III, section 2 of the U.S. Constitution excluded citizens of the District of Columbia. The Court observed, however, that it was ``extraordinary'' that residents of the District should be denied the same access to Federal courts provided to aliens and State residents, and invited Congress to craft a solution, noting that the matter was ``a subject for legislative, not judicial consideration.''

Congress accepted that invitation 145 years later and enacted legislation that explicitly granted District residents access to Federal

courts on diversity grounds. That legislation was upheld by the Supreme Court in 1949 in National Mutual Insurance Company v. Tidewater Transfer Company, 337 U.S. 582 (1949). A plurality of the Court led by Justice Jackson held that Congress could for this purpose treat District residents as though they were State residents pursuant to its authority under the District Clause. The two concurring justices would have gone even further; they argued that Hepburn should be overruled and that the District should be considered a State for purposes of Article III.

Tidewater strongly supports Congress's authority to provide the District a House Representative via simple legislation. As the plurality explained, because Congress unquestionably had the greater power to provide District residents diversity-based jurisdiction in special article I courts, it surely could accomplish the more limited result of granting District residents diversity-based access to existing article III courts. Similarly, Congress's authority to grant the District full rights of statehood--or grant its residents voting rights through retrocession--by simple legislation suggests that it may, by simple legislation, take the more modest step of providing citizens of the District with a voice in the House of Representatives. Indeed, since Congress has granted voting representation to residents of Federal enclaves in Evans v. Cornman, 398 U.S. 419 (1970), and to Americans living abroad through the Overseas Voting Act, there is no reason to suppose that Congress has less ability to provide voting representation to the residents of the Nation's capital.

II. Congress May Direct the Next-Entitled State to Elect Its Additional

Representative at Large

H.R. 1433 also grants an additional congressional seat to the State of Utah as the next-entitled State and directs that State to elect its additional Representative at large, rather than creating an additional single-Member district. Congress plainly has the authority to do so. This statutory scheme does not violate the ``one person, one vote'' principle.

As the Supreme Court held in Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U.S. 1 (1964), ``the command of Article I, Section 2 [of the Constitution], that Representatives be chosen `by the People of the Several States' means that as nearly as is practicable one man's vote in a congressional election is to be worth as much as another's.'' In that case the Court struck down a Georgia apportionment statute because it created a congressional district that had two-to-three times as many residents as Georgia's nine other congressional districts. The Court stated:

The apportionment statute thus contracts the value of some

votes and expands that of others. If the Federal Constitution

intends that when qualified voters elect members of Congress

each vote be given as much weight as any other vote, then

this statute cannot stand.

``One person, one vote'' concerns arise when congressional districts within a State contain different numbers of residents, diluting the voting power of residents in the district with more residents. In contrast, here the proposed temporary ``at large'' district in Utah does not dilute the voting power of any Utah voter.

When Utah holds its at-large election for the new fourth seat, Utah voters may cast a vote in their existing district and in the statewide election for the fourth seat. While it is true that the statewide ``at large'' district will necessarily contain more residents than the other districts, the establishment of that ``at large'' district would create no constitutional dilution concerns. Each person's vote in the ``at large'' district would have equal influence, and the opportunity to cast that vote would not alter in any way the value of that person's vote in her own smaller district.

Nor does a potential ``one person, one vote'' challenge arise on the ground that Utah residents vote in two elections while residents of other States with single-member districts would vote only once. First, the Supreme Court has never held that the ``one person, one vote'' principle applies to the apportionment process. Indeed, the Court has held that Congress is entitled to substantial deference in its apportionment decisions. Second, the proposed at-large election does not give residents of the State more or less voting power than the residents of States with single-Member districts. The example cited by Richard Bress, one of the witnesses who testified before the Judiciary Committee in support of the bill, illustrates why this is so.

Suppose that State A and State B have roughly the same population and are each entitled to four Representatives. State A holds an at-large election for all four of its Representatives, while State B divides its Representatives and voters into four districts. State A's statewide district would have a population four times the size of each district in State B. As compared to the single-district voter in State B, the ``at-large'' voter in State A has a one-fourth interest in each of four Representatives. The single-district voter in State B has a whole interest in one Representative. But in both scenarios, each voter has, in the aggregate, one whole voting interest.

Similarly, as compared to a State with four single-Member districts, the voters in Utah's existing three districts would have proportionately less influence in the election of the Representative from their own district, but would gain a fractional interest in the State's at-large Representative. In short, Utah residents would have no more--and no less--voting power than residents of any other State.

III. Conclusion

For these reasons, I believe H.R. 1433 is constitutionally unassailable. Granting voting rights to the citizens of the District of Columbia is a matter of simple justice. I know it is morally right. It is also long overdue. Let us end this injustice and be true to the better angels of our nature. I urge all Members to join me in voting for H.R. 1433.

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

I rise to express my appreciation to my very good friend from Massachusetts for yielding me the time and for his effort in getting us to the point where we are.

But, Mr. Speaker, I do rise in very, very strong opposition to not only this rule, but the underlying legislation, H. Res. 78, as well, which, as the gentleman has said very clearly, will authorize the Delegates and the Resident Commissioner to vote on legislation that is on the House floor.

I must confess that I am broadly disappointed in how we have arrived here. I am disappointed that we are here again debating a proposal which is, I truly believe, at its heart, unconstitutional.

While I have the utmost respect for my colleagues from the territories, and from the District of Columbia, if they want to vote in this body, Mr. Speaker, they should begin the statehood process, plain and simple. They should pursue that with great vigor and enthusiasm. And those who are the strongest supporters of it now have a majority in this House, which, I believe, should allow them to proceed with that effort if they so choose.

Now, Mr. Speaker, reasonable people can disagree as to the merits of this proposal. We are going to hear an awful lot this morning. However, I am also disappointed that we find ourselves in a situation where my colleagues at the Rules Committee have, once again, rolled back the transparency that I was very proud to work so diligently on behalf of when I had the privilege to serve as chairman of the committee. First, it was the ability to enforce the rules regarding putting record votes in committee reports. Thrown out the window. Next, rather than following the example that I was privileged to set in the 109th Congress of conducting

actual hearings and markups of rule changes, we find ourselves, Mr. Speaker, without the benefit of hearings with outside witnesses, without a committee report explaining the committee's thinking, without any opportunity for the minority to have its views published as part of the legislative history.

And I understand full well, Mr. Speaker, this, for the average American, is seen as inside baseball stuff. But deliberative democracy is something that is very near and dear to the founding of this country, the very basis on which our Nation was founded. And last night we had a great speech from the President of the United States that was delivered here in which he talked about our goal of working together.

But more than that, Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed about how my colleagues are approaching the most basic tasks of the Rules Committee. The Rules Committee is the all-important committee of the House, the traffic cop through which every major piece of legislation must go before it is considered here on the House floor. With the exception of privileged resolutions and items that we consider under suspension of the rules, what we really do here, and the appropriations process, we have tremendous responsibility. I argue that the Rules Committee is the single most important committee that exists in this institution because of the very, very unique role that we play.

I am so disappointed in how I have seen the basic handling of this committee. Any of you who have had the honor to serve as Chairs of committees know the challenges of crafting an agenda, of building support and moving that support forward. But as chairmen, we have a basic responsibility to maintain those very basic workings of the committee to ensure that Members have the documents that they need to discuss and debate matters that are before them.

Now, I don't want to belabor this, Mr. Speaker, by going through the particulars of yesterday's meeting, but I have to say it is very, very disappointing. Let me just say that my colleagues failed, the majority failed, at the most basic responsibilities, which disappoints me even more.

The last time this body considered, Mr. Speaker, the issue of Delegate voting, it was as part of an opening day rules package. The rule was changed, despite bipartisan opposition. That rule change led the then minority leader, our friend Mr. Michel, to file a lawsuit against the House to stop Delegates from voting on the House floor.

Well, the courts upheld the rule. They did so only because of the parliamentary sleight of hand which makes the right conferred on our colleagues illusory, illusory at the very best.

Mr. Speaker, 14 years later, this body is made up of 299 Members, 299 Members who were not here, never had a chance to vote on this issue before. And as I said, even back then there has never been a hearing, never been a process for us to hear from the scholars who clearly, clearly would spend a great deal of time and energy considering whether or not we should proceed with allowing the people who are not Representatives from States to have a chance to vote on the House floor.

So, Mr. Speaker, this is a very, very bad rule. It is a bad, bad, bad process. And what we witnessed last night in the Rules Committee was one of, if not the greatest, disservice to this institution that I have ever seen, it clearly is up there as one of the most pathetic and sad and disappointing things that I have ever seen.

As I said before, if my colleagues want the Delegates and the Resident Commissioner to enjoy the benefits conferred upon Representatives of the several States, they should encourage efforts to achieve statehood. There is nothing, nothing, Mr. Speaker, to be served by moving this unconstitutional rule any further in the process.

And to the point that was offered by my friend from Massachusetts on this notion of a substitute provided, I was taught very early on when I came to this institution more than a quarter of a century ago that you do not amend a bad bill. There is nothing that can be done in the amendment process that could make this constitutional.

And this notion that we have gone the entire route, the United States Supreme Court has not considered this, Mr. Speaker. I believe that what we are going to do here today, if it in fact succeeds, what we are going to do is we are going to embark on another legal struggle just as we did 14 years ago.

So I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule. And if the rule does prevail, I urge them to vote against the underlying resolution, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

I completely understand.

Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman goes through this litany of arguments, I would ask my friend if we ever, ever denied the wishes of a Member who asked that an amendment be withdrawn and gone ahead and made that amendment in order.

Mr. Speaker, my distinguished colleague from Miami, Mr. Diaz-Balart, has just read the appellate court decision on this issue and has spent a great deal of time and effort, and I yield him 3 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I would simply say that the gentleman's party is in charge now, and the process of beginning that move is really in your court. It is one that we will be very, very interested to engage in and look at and consider. I think that it would be an absolutely fascinating debate.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am very happy to yield 2 minutes to a very hardworking Member of Congress, our friend from Georgia, Dr. Price.

(Mr. PRICE of Georgia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am very happy to yield 1 minute to a very hardworking Member from Pittsburgh (Mr. Tim Murphy).

Mr. Speaker, the very thoughtful remarks of our friend from the District of Columbia underscore the great challenge that we have here on both sides.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my very good friend from Hollidaysburg, Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am very happy to yield 1 minute to our good friend from Pennsylvania (Mr. English).

Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding, my friend and classmate. We came together in 1981. I came a little before he did because he came in a special election, Mr. Speaker. He knows that I have the highest regard for him. We have worked very closely in a bipartisan way on a number of issues, and one of the things I was most proud of over the past several years was that my friend carried in his breast pocket quotes of mine on things that I said what we were in the minority about, the need for greater deliberation.

We considered, as my friend knows, a very noncontroversial issue, that being the extension of suspension days from Monday and Tuesday to Wednesday. We did that 3 years ago, a little over 3 years ago, and it had very little controversy to it. We began a very deliberative process. We had a hearing on that. Again, there wasn't much controversy.

And now I am going to take this opportunity to extend the quote of my friend, if he will indulge me, when he, on June 23 of 2003, at our Rules hearing on this said: ``The lack of free and fair debate on such important matters is an embarrassment to the Members who are privileged to serve. It demeans the House, it cheats the American people, and it offends our democratic traditions. Unfortunately, tactics designed to shut down debate are not an aberration; they are becoming the norm.''

And, Mr. Speaker, all I would say to my friend is that the sort of unpleasant debate that we are witnessing right now underscores the fact that moving through the procedure that we have to the House floor without a single committee hearing, without the input of scholars who might talk about the impact on this institution, on the American people, on the rights of American citizens, is something that we should consider. And that is the concern that we have. And I believe what we should do is withdraw this measure from the floor and go through regular order.

I simply offered, as the ranking minority member now of the committee, an amendment in the rule that would simply say that if I could offer, as the ranking member, the committee of jurisdiction, a germane amendment, I would like to have a chance to do that. And I was voted down in that quest.

Let us do proceed with what the gentleman has argued passionately for. He and I are both institutionalists, Mr. Speaker. Let us do allow the kind of deliberation that is essential to consideration of such an important issue.

Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to simply say to my friend that we are clearly in a position where upstairs we had said that we did not believe we should amend a bad bill. But at the same time, I simply made the request for, as the ranking minority member, the right to have a germane amendment if we so chose. And that was, in fact, denied us on a party-line vote that we had in the House.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am very happy to yield a minute to my good friend from Allentown, Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to a former member of the Rules Committee, we miss him greatly upstairs, our good friend from Marietta, Georgia, Dr. Gingrey.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair how much time is remaining on both sides.

Mr. Speaker, at this point, I am very, very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico, our good friend Mr. Fortuno.

(Mr. FORTUNO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I would inquire of the gentleman from Massachusetts how many speakers he has remaining.

Mr. Speaker, then I will yield myself the balance of the time.

Mr. Speaker, this has been a very, very sad debate. It has been a sad debate because of the lack of deliberation and the lack of the consideration.

The issue is, at best, controversial. I listened to the remarks of my very good friend, who, as I just told her, spends more time representing me now that we have this 5-day workweek than I do myself as a Californian because we spend so much time in the District of Columbia. Her remarks go right to the point of concern that we have raised about this process and why we are where we are at this juncture.

As I look at the other Delegates, and we have just heard from the Resident Commissioner, we obviously have the utmost respect for them, their service, and the great representation that they provide. And, over and above that, the issue that everyone has mentioned since the focal point of the State of the Union address delivered here by the President last night is that, as we prosecute this global war on terror, it is essential that we respect and revere every single life that has been lost in that struggle. And we know that there are many people who have come from the District of Columbia and from the other territories who have paid the ultimate price, and we are in debt to them for that.

But, Mr. Speaker, the thing that is very troubling to me is that we are at this point, without having ever given any kind of committee hearing, without any discussion or debate, and with a process upstairs that I think my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will acknowledge was really a great travesty and an injustice.

I want to express my appreciation to Mr. McGovern. Mr. Speaker, Mr. McGovern, when we were considering this rule upstairs, did make a good- faith effort in trying to offer a proposed compromise to this rule, and unfortunately he was denied the chance to do that.

As we look at the issue before us, many of us are troubled about the constitutionality of this, and our friends have basically just on the other side of the aisle discussed the court decision on this issue, Mr. Speaker, by saying what was stated by the circuit court. They used the word ``meaningless'' to describe this vote, and it was true, as I said, legerdemain, legislative sleight of hand, that they were able to at this juncture move through those two courts as they did with this measure.

But, Mr. Speaker, my plea to my very good friends and colleagues in the majority is simply let us go through the process of deliberation. Let us go through committee hearings. Let us hear from those very thoughtful scholars who so often testified before the Rules Committee in the past on a wide range of issues that we considered, and then after we go through that deliberative process, this process of democracy which we all hold near and dear, then I believe we could have a proposal that we could bring to the floor, if possible, to consider this measure.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, I am very, very, very disappointed at the way this whole issue has been handled, and frankly, as my friend from Marietta said earlier, all of the closed rules that we have had on these measures that were brought before us, we were told that when we got beyond the Six for 2006, that things were going to be much different.

A professor at my alma mater, Claremont McKenna College, wrote in the Orange County Register yesterday that that is like saying, I will respect you in the morning.

Mr. Speaker, we have seen a continuation of a clamp-down of deliberative democracy, and what we are faced with here at this moment, offer of a substitute aside, has denied the deliberation that this very important issue deserves.

So, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule, and if by chance the rule does pass, I urge strong opposition to the underlying resolution.

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

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I move to reconsider the vote on the previous question.

Motion to Table Offered by Mr. Mc Govern

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 86 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield to my friend from California, the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Rules, Mr. Dreier, 30 minutes; pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. And during consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purposes of debate only.

Mr. Speaker, the rule before us provides 1 hour of general debate in the House equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member on the Committee on Rules. The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the resolution and provides that the resolution shall be considered as read. The rule makes in order the amendment printed in the Rules report accompanying this resolution, if offered by Representative Kirk of Illinois or his designee. The amendment shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 20 minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, and shall not be subject to a demand for a division of the question. The rule also waives all points of order against consideration of the amendment printed in the report, and contains one motion to recommit, which may not contain instructions. Finally, the rule provides that, notwithstanding the operation of the previous question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the bill to a time designated by the Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, let me clearly state that there is no obligation for any Member to offer the amendment. The rule simply allows Mr. Kirk or his designee the option of offering this amendment if they choose to do so.

Also, Mr. Speaker, the Republicans were given the option to offer a substitute, and they declined.

This resolution will amend the House rules and allow the five Delegates who were elected to the House of Representatives to vote in the Committee of the Whole.

The Committee of the Whole is comprised of all Members of the House of Representatives, and is a procedural forum in which the House considers debates and votes on amendments to most of the legislation reported out of committee. After consideration of amendments in the Committee of the Whole, legislation is reported to the floor of the House for final consideration.

As we all know, Mr. Speaker, Delegates and Resident Commissioner have the same powers, rights and responsibilities as full Members of the House, with some exceptions. They cannot vote on the floor in the House or in the Committee of the Whole, they cannot offer a motion to reconsider, and they are not counted for quorum purposes.

Mr. Speaker, this resolution provides certain protections that have been ruled constitutional by Federal courts. Specifically, no Delegate or Resident Commissioner can provide the deciding margin of any amendment considered in the Committee of the Whole. In other words, if the vote in the Committee of the Whole is decided by five or fewer votes, it must be reconsidered immediately by the House of Representatives.

Let me state this clearly for all my colleagues. No Delegate or Resident Commissioner will provide the margin of victory or defeat of any amendment. It is that clear.

Delegates and the Resident Commissioner will not be able to vote on final passage, nor will they be able to vote on procedural motions.

Mr. Speaker, the Delegates and Resident Commissioner represent people who serve in our Armed Forces. Thirty thousand residents of Guam are military personnel. Over 2,400 soldiers from the territories and the District of Columbia are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan today, wars that this Chamber voted in favor of. American Samoa has the highest per capita casualty rate of any State or territory for the war in Iraq.

We believe that the people who fight and die wearing the uniform of the United States deserve to have their voices heard in the people's House.

Beyond that, Mr. Speaker, residents of all territories and the District of Columbia pay Social Security taxes, Medicare taxes under FICA. The people living in the territories and the District of Columbia deserve to have a voice in Congress, and their elected representatives, the Delegates and the Resident Commissioner, deserve to have a vote in the Committee of the Whole.

Mr. Speaker, while these voting privileges are in large part symbolic, and I, for one, believe that the District of Columbia, where people actually pay Federal taxes in addition to all the other contributions that they make to this country, deserve to have full voting rights in this Congress, but this is the least, I think, we can do to restore some modicum of representation to these millions of Americans, and I strongly urge my colleagues to support this rule and vote for the resolution.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, again I would remind my colleagues that the minority was given the opportunity for a substitute and they declined. I would remind my colleagues in the House that the one Member of the minority who came before the Rules Committee and offered an amendment, that amendment has been made in order if he so chooses to offer it.

So I guess, maybe because this is not a closed rule, it does not fit into the Republican talking points today, they are a little bit upset. But the bottom line is that we on the majority side have done our best to try to accommodate the minority.

Mr. Speaker, not at this time.

Mr. Speaker, I am glad the gentleman respects the courtesies of the decorum of the House.

Mr. Speaker, let me also say that it is a little bit difficult for any of us on this side of the aisle to stand here and be lectured about process by the distinguished former chairman of the Rules Committee, to be lectured about transparency, and about how the committee should be run.

I recall being in the committee when the USA PATRIOT Act was brought before the Rules Committee, went through a process of regular order, bipartisan process, and then was rewritten in the Rules Committees without anybody knowing what was going on, and then brought to the floor under a very closed process.

I remember a special interest provision that magically appeared on a conference report after the report was signed and closed. That is not the process that this new Democratic majority wants to be like.

I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California.

I reclaim my time.

Mr. Speaker, I could be here all day, all week, all month and perhaps all year documenting and listing occasion after occasion after occasion where the former majority, I think, broke the rules of this House and did a great disservice to the rules of this House.

We have done our best to accommodate the minority on this rule. They had the opportunity to offer a substitute, they declined. An amendment that was brought before the Rules Committee has been made in order. If they don't want to offer it, they don't have to offer it. In fact, if they don't want it in the rule, we have made the offer that if they want to offer an amendment to strike the Kirk provision, they can offer an amendment on this floor and we will be happy to accept it.

So I think, Mr. Speaker, that this kind of talk of a bad process, and I should also point out just for the record that the Committee on Rules met in the afternoon, Mr. Dreier, not in the evening. Things have changed. We meet in the light of day, not in the middle of the night anymore.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York, who was actually born in the territory of Puerto Rico, Mr. Serrano.

(Mr. SERRANO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Let me encourage the gentleman from Georgia to read the rule. The Republicans were offered the right for a substitute. They could have had a substitute that null and voided this entire resolution, and they chose not to.

There is an amendment made in order under the rule by the gentleman from Illinois or his designee, which I strongly disagree with, that would essentially gut this entire provision. It would allow no one, with the possible exception of the gentlewoman who represents the District of Columbia, to be able to participate. So the opportunity is there. What the gentleman needs to do is read the rule.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Guam (Ms. Bordallo).

(Ms. BORDALLO asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), the District of Columbia, a place where there is taxation but not full representation.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega).

(Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), our Democratic leader.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I just want to clarify for the record that the Rules Committee did offer the Republicans a substitute, which they declined. The amendment that was brought before the Rules Committee was made in order.

And I also would like to say, Mr. Speaker, in response to my friend, Mr. English, that there are 58 million Americans who pay no income tax in this country, just payroll tax. I hope the gentleman is not suggesting that those people shouldn't have a right to vote.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask unanimous consent to have inserted in the Record a letter that was sent to the Rules Committee signed by Mr. Faleomavaega, Mr. Fortuno, Ms. Eleanor Holmes Norton, Mrs. Christensen, and Ms. Bordallo in support of the underlying bill.

And let me remind my colleague from Georgia, this is not a closed rule. If he wants a closed rule, he has the right to amend it.

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

What is the gentleman's objection?

Mr. Speaker, I will let the gentleman proceed.

I am it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time.

Mr. Speaker, let me restate what I said earlier: This rule allows for consideration of the only amendment offered in the Rules Committee yesterday. We also offered the minority the opportunity for a substitute, which they declined. If this bill is so awful, they could have introduced a substitute to null and void it. Indeed, the amendment that is made in order practically null and voids this entire bill. As someone who has been around for a few years, I do not think I have ever heard so many complaints about a rule that makes in order every single amendment offered in the Rules Committee.

But, Mr. Speaker, let me say, the old days are over. I could stand on this floor all day and cite a list of abuses by the former majority. Instead, let me focus on how this Democratic majority has chosen to operate.

For the last few weeks, we have heard complaint after complaint that the Republicans were not allowed to offer amendments on our Six for '06 agenda. Now the gentleman from California and others are complaining that we are allowing a Republican amendment. I have got a case of whiplash.

Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that by allowing the other side of the aisle to offer amendments and offer a substitute, we have messed up their talking points.

Mr. Kirk from Illinois came before the Rules Committee with a thoughtful amendment, offered in good faith. I happened to disagree very strongly with the substance of his amendment, but I support his right to offer it, debate it and get an up-or-down vote in this House. Indeed, I would urge my colleagues to go to the Rules Committee and to read the testimony of Mr. Kirk and also the statements by members of the Rules Committee, Republican members, who urged that this amendment be made in order. This was

a hearing, I would remind my colleagues, that happened in the light of day, not in the middle of the night.

Let me also remind my colleague there is no obligation for the gentleman from Illinois or anybody else to offer the amendment if they choose not to. It is up to them. Indeed, they could offer an amendment to strike this amendment from the rule if they want and have a closed rule, which they have become accustomed to under their leadership.

What we are allowing, Mr. Speaker, is for the Delegates and the Resident Commissioner to the House of Representatives to have a symbolic vote that will not count if they are the deciding margin of victory or defeat of any amendment. We are allowing for the possible consideration of an amendment. If the sponsor Member decides to offer the amendment to this resolution, he can offer it, or his designee. Finally, we are protecting that amendment from all points of order.

Let me close, Mr. Speaker, by addressing the rank-and-file Members on the Republican side. We believe that you have a right to be heard. If you come before the Rules Committee with thoughtful amendments, we will give you every possible consideration. We will not be perfect. We will do some things that you will not like, but the distinguished chairwoman of the Rules Committee Ms. Slaughter and all of us on this side of the aisle have made it very clear that we will preside over a more open, democratic process than was the norm for the past 12 years.

The rule before us is a product of that commitment, and indeed, it responds to the Member who came before the Rules Committee to offer an amendment. I think that is good form.

Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the previous question and vote ``yes'' on the rule.

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to table the motion to reconsider.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 260, I call up the bill (H.R. 1433) to provide for the treatment of the District of Columbia as a Congressional district for purposes of representation in the House of Representatives, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself as much time as I may consume.

This is an historic moment indeed. I am honored to lead the floor management of a bill that we have been waiting so long to debate and hopefully move forward from the House of Representatives.

This is an important moment in American history. We must now act to discontinue the disenfranchisement of citizens in the Nation's Capital. We must act to complete the important unfinished business of our democracy.

All of you here are all too familiar with the struggle for D.C. voting rights. I remember Chairman Emanuel Celler, chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, when the House gave the District a vote in 1967. I remember Delegate Walter Fauntroy's and Senator Ed Brooke's pursuit of the District's representation in 1978. I have now had the privilege of working with the distinguished gentlewoman, the Delegate from the District of Columbia, Eleanor Holmes Norton, a tireless, relentless, brilliant advocate of the effort that brings us here today.

Right now we are attempting to resolve what could not be resolved before, through the bipartisan efforts of so many. Mr. Davis of Virginia, Mr. Cannon of Utah, Mr. Matheson and Mr. Bishop have gotten us this far today, but I would be remiss if I did not name the former chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Jim Sensenbrenner, who helped bring us so close to passage of this legislation in the last Congress. I thank all of you for the important work that has led us to this great and wonderful day.

Now, the bill before us today has a novel proposal, but it is one that we have seen before. We are now here today to finish the important work on this measure that we almost completed when we adjourned the last Congress. We are here today to finish the job.

As the only democracy in the world where citizens living in the capital city are denied their representation in the National Legislature, we come here to repair this obvious defect. Nearly 600,000 people who call the District of Columbia home, who pay taxes, who fight and die in the military, do not have a vote in the Congress. They do not have a vote in the Congress. That is what brings us here today. I am talking about people like one of its citizens, Andy Shallal, a local business owner and an Iraqi American.

Thousands of American soldiers, including District residents, have given their lives in fighting for democracy in Iraq. Because of their sacrifice, Andy can vote for the national legislature in Iraq but is denied a vote for his own Member of Congress in Washington, District of Columbia.

So District residents like Andy and all those who share the responsibilities of U.S. citizenship deserve voting representation in this Congress, and I believe that most in this body agree with me. I believe that H.R. 1433 is a sound policy response to this inequity. While some have raised questions and we have debated, we have had constitutional scholars from across the country join us in analyzing the way that we have put this measure together. I am totally and confidently satisfied that we have a bill that passes constitutional muster. We have a bill that can finally end the disenfranchisement of District residents.

The legislation relies obviously on Article I, section 8, clause 17, which provides Congress with the authority to give the District a vote. The Supreme Court has held that Congress's exclusive authority over the District is ``national in the highest sense.'' The D.C. Circuit Court has held that the Congress has ``extraordinary and plenary power'' over the District. The District of Columbia Court of Appeals has found the District Clause to be ``sweeping and inclusive in character.''

Distinguished conservatives, we emphasize that this is not a partisan measure. Thoughtful scholars like Viet Dinh, judges and scholars like Ken Starr, whom I have never cited or quoted before now, and our former colleague Jack Kemp, just to name a few, agree that the Congress has the power through simple legislation to give the District of Columbia a vote.

We have used the District Clause to treat the District like a State repeatedly: for diversity jurisdiction, for 11th amendment immunity, for alcohol regulation, for interstate transportation, for apprentice labor, for the collection

of State income taxes, the list goes on and on. Surely, we cannot say that we cannot give them, the District residents, a vote in the same way that we have handled so many other matters.

I am confident that we can pair the District of Columbia with Utah and give Utah an at-large seat. Article I, section 4 gives Congress ultimate authority over Federal elections. The one person, one vote principle will be left intact. No vote will be compromised or diluted. None of their vote will be lost, nor will it be expanded. Utah voters will be given an equal opportunity to elect an at-large Representative on a temporary basis and a District Representative.

This fight has been long, 200 years too long. We can debate this issue to no end, but at the end of the day, if District residents remain disenfranchised, we ought to be ashamed. We have a sound, bipartisan proposal before us, and I am happy to entertain the discussion on both sides of the aisle that will proceed at this time.

I want to thank those of our Republican colleagues in the House who have already seen fit to make it clear that they, too, will be joining with us to make this a bipartisan solution to an old problem. I am proud to think and hope that D.C. disenfranchisement will come to an end.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 10 seconds, and I include for the Record the 25 legal scholars of constitutional authority who have already weighed in on this bill, plus the former elected officials and former Senators and Members of Congress and Presidential appointees that have all examined this with great care and find that it is not constitutionally defective.

DC Vote,

Washington, DC, March 12, 2007.

25 Legal Scholars Support Constitutionality of DC Voting Rights

Dear Representative: DC residents pay federal income taxes,

serve on juries and die in wars to defend American democracy,

but they do not have voting representation in the Congress.

This lack of representation is inconsistent with our

nation's core democratic principles. Justice Hugo Black put

it well in Wesberry v. Sanders in 1964: ``No right is more

precious in a free country than that of having a voice in the

election of those who make the laws under which, as good

citizens, we must live. Other rights, even the most basic,

are illusory if the right to vote is undermined.''

Congress is currently considering granting voting rights to

Americans living in Washington, DC. Lawmakers have been faced

with questions about the constitutionality of extending the

right to vote to residents of a ``non-state.''

As law professors and scholars, we would like to address

these questions and put to

rest any concerns about the constitutionality of extending

the right of representation to residents of the District.

While the language of the Constitution literally requires

that House members be elected ``by the People of the Several

states,'' Congress has not always applied this language so

literally. For example, the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens

Absentee Voting Act allows U.S. citizens living abroad to

vote in congressional elections in their last state of

residence--even if they are no longer citizens there, pay any

taxes there, or have any intent to return.

To fully protect the interests of people living in the

capital, the Framers gave Congress extremely broad authority

over all matters relating to the federal district under

Article I, Sec. 8, clause 17 (the ``District Clause'').

Courts have ruled that this clause gives Congress

``extraordinary and plenary power'' over DC and have upheld

congressional treatment of DC as a ``state'' for purposes of

diversity jurisdiction and interstate commerce, among other

things. Article III provides that courts may hear cases

``between citizens of different states'' (diversity

jurisdiction). The Supreme Court initially ruled that under

this language, DC residents could not sue residents of other

states. But in 1940, Congress began treating DC as a state

for this purpose--a law upheld in D.C. v. Tidewater Transfer

Co. (1949).

The Constitution also allows Congress to regulate commerce

``among the several states,'' which, literally, would exclude

DC. But Congress' authority to treat DC as a ``state'' for

Commerce Clause purposes was upheld in Stoughtenburg v.

Hennick (1889).

We believe, under the same analysis of the Constitution,

that Congress has the power through ``simple'' legislation to

provide voting representation in Congress for DC residents.

Sincerely,

Sheryll D. Cashin, Georgetown University Law Center; Viet

D. Dinh, Georgetown University Law Center; Charles J.

Ogletree, Harvard Law School; Jamin Raskin, American

University Washington College of Law; Samuel R.

Bagenstos, Washington University Law School; Brian L.

Baker, San Joaquin College of Law; William W. Bratton,

Georgetown University Law Center; Richard Pierre

Claude, University of Maryland; Sherman Cohn,

Georgetown University Law Center; Peter Edelman,

Georgetown University Law Center; James Forman Jr.,

Georgetown University Law Center; David A. Gantz, The

University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law.

Michael Gottesman, Georgetown University Law Center;

Michael Greenberger, University of Maryland; Pat King,

Georgetown University Law Center; Charles R. Lawrence

III, Georgetown University Law Center; Paul Steven

Miller, University of Washington School of Law; James

Oldham, Georgetown University Law Center; Christopher

L. Peterson University of Florida, Levin College of

Law; Robert Pitofsky, Georgetown University Law Center;

David Schultz, University of Minnesota; Girardeau A.

Spann, Georgetown University Law Center; Ronald S.

Sullivan Jr., Yale Law School; Roger Wilkins, George

Mason University; Wendy Williams, Georgetown University

Law Center.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to point out that a constitutional amendment could take 10 years, who knows, to have a part of a State ceded back. The three methods that have been suggested by

the former chairman of Judiciary Committee, who has worked very hard on this, are, in effect, impractical.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased now to recognize the chairman of the Constitutional Subcommittee on the Judiciary, Mr. Nadler, who has done extraordinary work in this regard, 5 minutes.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds. I refer the former attorney general of the State of California to the list we have right now about 10 decisions in which reviews, under the constitutional authority, D.C. as a State.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 5 minutes to the distinguished lady, a member of the committee and who has served with great distinction on the House Judiciary Committee for constitutional questions, Sheila Jackson-Lee of Houston, Texas.

Madam Speaker, if the gentlelady will yield, I ask her, why would we be asking for special standing, we in the Congress? Why would we be asking for an expedited review? Can't the courts decide who gets either of those two special privileges to come to the front of the line?

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute because the speaker from Texas, Mr. Gohmert, a valuable member of Judiciary, a highly praised judge, and a supporter of gun rights too, incidentally ignores a decision that just came out of the federal court, just recently, within weeks, Parker v. Williams, which held that the second amendment renders the District's gun ban unconstitutional--which I was sorry to hear, but he probably wasn't--in that ``a well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.''

The court held that D.C. was a State for purposes of the Constitution's second amendment.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the rest of my time.

The gentlelady from Los Angeles, California, has come upon the floor. I know she wants to speak on this, and I recognize Maxine Waters from California for 3 minutes on this subject.

Madam Speaker, I reserve my time.

Madam Speaker, we continue to reserve time.

Madam Speaker, I am proud to yield 1 minute to the most patient Member in the House of Representatives, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Al Green).

Madam Speaker, I am proud to yield 1 full minute to Rush Holt of New Jersey.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio, Dennis Kucinich, a distinguished Member of this body.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased now to yield 1 minute to my good friend from Virginia, James Moran.

Madam Speaker, I am proud to yield 1 minute to my friend the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

(Mrs. MALONEY of New York asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)