American Child Support Enforcement Immigration Act of 2006

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, I have had a sleepless night in pondering and wondering how this day's debate is going to turn out, and it is most unfortunate that this issue has become divisive among our colleagues this day.

Much has been said about America's insular territories and the District of Columbia. In fact, this is probably the first time in years that we have ever given this much attention to the privileges and rights of the five congressional Delegates, the privileges and rights of those of us who represent some 5 million fellow Americans that are part and parcel of this great Nation.

Some have said that the insular areas don't pay Federal income taxes, and therefore why are we allowing our congressional Delegates to vote in the Committee of the Whole. In the first place, it is constitutional; we have been through that test already 13 years ago.

The question of taxation without representation also comes to mind. And I submit to my friends on the other side of the aisle, it seems that at some period, at least in my humble opinion, at some period of time, if the Congress ever works its will to have the insular areas to pay Federal income taxes, that should we not also be allowed the right to vote?

How ironic that here under the shadow of our Nation's Capitol some 600,000 U.S. citizens pay Federal income taxes. And my distinguished colleague representing the District of Columbia for how many years has pled this case, no representation without taxation, but she pays taxes. So how ironic is it that we are talking about representation and taxation, and yet right under the shadows of our Nation's Capitol 600,000 U.S. citizens are denied their due representation by my distinguished friend and colleague from the District of Columbia in the process. Where is the equity and fairness in the process, Madam Speaker?

Much has been said about the population as a factor in this debate. And it seems that my friends on the other side have, almost to the point of making a mockery of the fact that I happen to have 70,000 residents of my district that I represent, I make no apologies for the fact that I represent some 70,000 residents of the United States territory of American Samoa. I make no apologies for the fact that nine of my soldiers have died fighting for our country's interest in that terrible conflict in Iraq, and about 40 or more wounded. I daresay, I wonder if any of my colleagues have a constituency of 70,000 whose soldiers, eight of them I have had to personally escort their remains to my district, which is about only a 16-hour flight from here.

I make no apologies for the fact that I am here because this body passed a law some 26 years ago to allow my little territory representation. So if my colleagues on the other side want to introduce a bill to get rid of Delegate representation in this body, then do so. But don't come here and make these, almost an embarrassment, to suggest that my little constituency is less important to the fact that there are 36 million Californians living in California. Is it any different than the 500,000 living in Wyoming, another half million living in Vermont, or other States of our great Nation? So let's not use population as a factor to suggest that because I only have 70,000 residents and some 130,000 living throughout the United States, that because of that reason we should not be here.

I submit, Madam Speaker, I am saddened that this has gotten to the point where we are caught in the crossfire, and here the congressional Delegates are caught in between the political movements that are going on.

I respectfully request and ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to pass this proposed resolution.

Madam Speaker. I rise today in support of H. Res. 78, amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to permit Delegates and the Resident Commissioner to the Congress to cast votes in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union. I thank my good friend and colleague the gentleman from Maryland--the distinguished Majority Leader for his initiative and leadership by introducing this resolution now before us for consideration.

This is not the first time this proposed rule has been debated and adopted. In 1993, the 103rd Congress amended the House Rules in the exact manner we are discussing today. From 1993 to 1995, the House of Representatives voted to allow the Congressional delegates of the different territories to vote in the Committee of the Whole, with the caveat that if the outcome of the vote was within the margin of the number of Delegates voting, the Committee would rise and the House would revote the question without the participation of the Delegates. In 1995, the new Republican majority eliminated these provisions from the House Rules and our Congressional delegates no longer voted in the Committee of the Whole.

In the lawsuit filed by our Republican colleagues challenging these Rules in 1993, the federal district court determined that the Rules changes were constitutional. As the district court held, the determining factor that rendered these proposed rules constitutional was the revote provision that was included. In the view of the court, this provision essentially made the vote meaningless as an exercise of legislative power--a power that is reserved by the Constitution to the Representatives of the States. This judgment was later affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit.

Given that this amendment to the House Rules was adjudged to be constitutional only because it provided what was characterized as a meaningless vote, why are we discussing this legislation? I submit that we are here because although the privilege extended by this change in the Rules is meaningless as an exercise of legislative power, it is vitally important because it provides a forum for our representatives from Puerto Rico, DC, American Samoa, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands to participate in the democratic process.

As the Majority Leader explained on the floor of the House last Friday when asked the purpose of this legislation, and he said and I quote, ``the purpose is to honor democracy.'' Each of us has been elected by our home districts to represent their interests in the U.S. House of Representatives. Because we do not represent states we do not vote on legislation, but we do advocate on behalf of our constituencies nonetheless. The Rules changes contemplated here today represent a symbolic extension of our ability as Congressional delegates to advocate, to educate, and to inform

our colleagues in the House of Representatives as they vote on legislation that impacts the lives of some 5 million of our fellow Americans who live in the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.

If our goal here in Congress is to produce the best possible legislation, would it not benefit us to consider and debate in the Committee of the Whole the potential impact of legislation on all Americans, including those 5 million Americans residing in the territories? For example, given the strategic importance of Guam in the Pacific and the billions of dollars the United States spends on our military presence in Guam, wouldn't legislation pertaining to Guam benefit from the perspective of Guam's representative? Also, given that the Resident Commissioner represents nearly 4 million Americans, shouldn't his perspective on initiatives that impact the people of Puerto Rico at least be considered as Congress deliberates on such issues?

Another obvious benefit of this legislation would be that the votes taken in the Committee of the Whole would establish a voting record for our constituents to inform them of our positions on issues that affect the lives of all of our people. While we make every effort to ensure that those we represent here in Congress are familiar with our position on current issues, a recorded vote would provide evidence of our commitment to their issues of concern.

Recently, concerns have been expressed that, in my opinion, only distract from the fundamental issue of honoring democracy by agreeing to these Rules changes. First, this is not an issue of party affiliation. We are here from both parties. Second, this is not an issue of patriotism. We are all Americans--just as in your districts, our soldiers from the territories sacrifice their lives and limbs to protect our freedoms. Third, this is not an issue of population size. Our populations range from 70,000 to over 3.4 million. We are each here to represent the interest of our respective areas--territories, district, and commonwealth.

The Rules changes being considered to allow Delegates and the Resident Commissioner are important not because they would provide the territorial representatives a symbolic vote, but because they would enhance our opportunities to participate in the democratic process.

These changes have been judicially affirmed as clearly constitutional. The passage of these rules gives Congress the potential to enhance legislation produced in the House. H. Res. 78 would allow us as Delegates and Resident Commissioner to better represent our constituents by providing a voting record through which they could evaluate our positions on national legislation.

I strongly support this legislation and I urge my colleagues to support H. Res. 78, and allow the Delegates and the Resident Commissioner a vote in the Committee of the Whole on the State of the Union.

Might I say, Mr. Speaker, it is a joy to see you in the chair, and I thank the member of the majority Rules Committee and the Rules Committee and a number of my colleagues.

And might I just remind my colleagues that we had some 10 years for the Members on the other side of the aisle to make good on a constitutional promise.

It should be noted that this very rule and its format has been affirmed on constitutional grounds. It was utilized by majority vote in the 103th Congress without one incident except three revotes.

The idea and concept is to again inform America that we believe in one vote, one person. I know historically the complete insult to being considered less than one vote. Slaves were characterized historically as less than one person. And so this particular legislation is a making of the whole of individuals who pay taxes, Federal taxes, Social Security, Medicare taxes, and individuals who we know, Mr. Speaker, have been on the front lines of Iraq, Afghanistan, and every single war.

And so to the American Samoa, to the District of Columbia, to the Virgin Islands, and to the District of Columbia along with Puerto Rico and the Commissioner, the argument for self-rule or however Puerto Rico will ultimately be designed is not the argument here today. The argument here today is to allow the constituents, some 4.4 million, represented by Commissioners and Delegates to have a constitutional right to vote. There is no way that this Congress, this Democratic Congress under the leadership of Speaker Pelosi and the leadership team, can reject the right for Americans to vote or those who are in many instances citizens.

And so, Mr. Speaker, I support the rule and the underlying bill, and would ask us to uphold the Constitution by voting today to allow those who have the right to vote to express their vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 78, which would amend the rules of the House of Representatives to permit Delegates from the District of Columbia, Guam, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and the Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico to cast votes in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union.

I support H.R. 78 because restoring to the Delegates and the Resident Commissioner the right to vote in the Committee of the Whole is an act of simple justice long overdue. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 78 merely restores the practice that prevailed in this House during the 103rd Congress. When the Republicans won control of this chamber in 1994, one of their first acts was to strip elected Delegates and the Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico of their right to vote in the Committee of the Whole.

Let me point out at the outset, Mr. Speaker, that the rule we seek to restore today was rescinded by the Republican controlled 104th Congress, and prohibited by each succeeding Congress through the 110th not because the rule is unconstitutional or illegal but because for apparently partisan reasons. Four of the five Members directly affected by the rule are members of the Democratic Caucus.

But the fact is, Mr. Speaker, the authority of this House to confer voting rights in the Committee of the Whole upon elected Delegates and the Resident Commissioner of Puerto has been squarely addressed and upheld by the Federal courts.

When the House adopted a similar rule during the 103d Congress, Republican opponents immediately brought action in federal court challenging the constitutionality of the rule on the ground that it vested legislative power in persons who were not elected to represent citizens of any of the several States. In March 1993, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia upheld the rules change on the ground that the Delegate votes was structured so that Delegate votes in the Committee of the Whole were symbolic in nature and thus did not affect the final ultimate outcome of any vote. Michaels v. Anderson, 817 F. Supp. 126 (D.D.C. 1993), aff'd, 109 F.3d 623 (1994). For this reason, the court held that the rule did not unconstitutionally confer legislative power upon Delegates.

In affirming the district court, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia held that the additional authority conferred on Delegates by the rule change was ``largely symbolic'' and ``not significantly greater than that which they enjoy serving and voting on the standing committees.'' Id. Nor was the court persuaded by the argument raised by opponents below that the rule change had the symbolic effect of granting Delegates higher status and greater prestige in their home districts. In rejecting the claim, the court noted that because of the savings clause contained in the rule, the claimed harm was ``unproven, remote, and speculative'' and of no unconstitutional moment. Simply put, the court held that the rule ``was not unconstitutional as the delegation of an improper exercise of legislative power.''

Moreover, Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court has long held and it is now settled that the Congress has broad authority to take action with respect to the territories and the District of Columbia. See Sere & Laralde v. Pilot, 10 U.S. 332, 336-37 (1810); Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U.S. 15, 44 (1885); Binns v. U.S., 194 U.S. 486 (1885).

Mr. Speaker, our Nation's Capital of the District of Columbia, the United States territories of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands, all play an important role in this great Nation. They serve in our military. They are fighting for us right now in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are making and have made the ultimate sacrifice to protect and defend this Nation.

Mr. Speaker, more than 30,000 residents of Guam are on active duty in the Armed Forces of the United States. That is nearly 20 percent of the population of the territory. No other congressional district or State comes close to matching this measure of devotion. Approximately 2,500 soldiers from the District of Columbia and the territories are currently serving in Iraq and Afghanistan today. And American Samoa has the highest per capita rate of any State or territory in the Iraq war. The Iraq war

death rate per 1 million people in the population is almost as high for American Samoa as for the 10 highest States combined.

Sadly also, Mr. Speaker, the Nation lost 19 brave soldiers this past Saturday when the helicopter they were riding was shot down by insurgents. Two of the heroes who made this supreme sacrifice for their country were residents of the Virgin Islands.

Mr. 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.

Mr. Speaker, taxation without representation is tyranny. In the aggregate, nearly 5 million persons residing in the District of Columbia, Guam, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and Puerto Rico are wrongly, and I say unconscionably, being denied a vote--and therefore denied a voice--in the most important legislative body in the world and making a mockery of our commitment to democracy and equal justice.

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.

It is wrong, Mr. Speaker, that the citizens of the District of Columbia, who after all pay taxes to the United States, serve in the Armed Forces, and are subject to the laws and jurisdiction of the United States, are denied a vote in the body that imposes those taxes, raises and maintains the Armed Forces, and makes the laws that each of us must obey.

License plates in the District of Columbia remind us of their ongoing struggle for a proper voice in this Federal Government, reading: ``Taxation without representation.'' The people in Boston felt so strongly about this in 1775 that they rebelled in Boston Harbor, launching the ``Boston Tea Party.''

This principle is no less vital today. We must not deny the territories of Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, the Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands the right to have a vote in Congress. Doing so denies their important relationships with our Nation and contributions to our economy.

Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Hoyer, for introducing H. Res. 78, which honors and vindicates the residents of the District of Columbia and the territories. Not only do we appreciate their military service and tax receipts, we value their views and opinion in the halls of Congress.

I urge my colleagues to support H. Res. 78. But let us not stop there. I hope all Members will support H.R. 328, the D.C. Fair and Equal Voting Rights Act, which will give full voting rights in the House to the nearly 600,000 citizens of the District of Columbia.

Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 86, I call up the resolution (H. Res. 78) amending the Rules of the House of Representatives to permit Delegates and the Resident Commissioner to the Congress to cast votes in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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

Madam Speaker, I am very proud to be bringing this bill to the House floor today. This minor change in House rules represents a major step forward for the nearly 5 million Americans whose voice is not currently represented on the floor of this House. That is right, Madam Speaker, 5 million Americans go unrepresented on the floor of the people's House.

This is one of the few things we can do for the American body politic that is not only the right thing to do, it is easy to do as well.

One of the most simple, yet eloquent and powerful statements in support of what we will do today was made by one of our former colleagues several years ago. Ben Blaz served in this House for 8 years as the delegate from Guam in the mid-1980s and early 1990s.

Delegate Blaz is a man of unquestioned patriotism and uncommon valor. He retired from the Marine Corps with the rank of brigadier general, and during his time in the corps he was awarded the Legion of Merit, a Bronze Star with Combat V and the Vietnam Cross of Gallantry.

I give you a little background on the former Delegate so that our colleagues can have some context when I tell you what General Blaz had to say at one time on this House floor. What the general said about his status in the House and the faith of his fellow Guamanians was this: ``We are equal in war, but not in peace.''

So it is today, Madam Speaker. Over the past several months, and as recently as this week, in the deserts of Iraq and Afghanistan, young Americans from Guam, American Samoa, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands and Washington, D.C. have fought and died in defense of their country and in service to the Nation they love. In the helicopter that crashed last week, two from the Virgin Islands were on that helicopter and lost their lives.

And yet our colleagues, Mr. Fortuno from Puerto Rico, Dr. Christensen from the Virgin Islands, Mr. Faleomavaega from American Samoa, Ms. Bordallo from Guam and Ms. Norton, from Washington, D.C., have no right to cast a vote and be a voice for their constituents and our fellow Americans out on the battlefield.

But, you know, Madam Speaker, I may be overstating the importance of this modest rules change. It is, after all, more symbolism than substance. Yes, our colleagues who I just mentioned will finally be able to cast a vote on the House floor, but, and this should be the clincher for my Republican friends who generally prefer to see democracy squelched in the people's House, if a vote cast by a Delegate or the Resident Commissioner or by them collectively amounts to the deciding votes on a question before the

House, then the vote is retaken without permitting them to participate.

So who could possibly be opposed to giving our colleagues, arguably some of the most gifted and thoughtful legislators in this Chamber, the right to cast a nondecisive vote on the House floor? I mean, that really should be done.

Let me close for now by doing something I don't often do here, and that is to quote the current President of the United States. Last night, Madam Speaker, standing where you are, not 25 feet from where I stand today, the distinguished President of the United States, President Bush, said, ``This is a decent and honorable country.''

What we are trying to do on the House floor today, colleagues, is the decent and honorable thing to do.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased at this time to yield 4 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers), the distinguished Chair of the Judiciary Committee.

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

I would merely urge the gentleman to recognize that Puerto Rico has 4 million citizens, and I don't know what planet he is living on, but everybody in the District of Columbia pays taxes. And I don't understand this continuing argument. I am curious to know what would happen if Dallas, Texas, didn't have the right to vote in the House.

I would also remind the gentleman that the United States District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has already ruled that this matter is not unconstitutional.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Velazquez), my good friend and classmate who is the Chair of the Small Business Committee.

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2

minutes to the distinguished chairwoman of the Congressional Black Caucus and my good friend from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick).

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield to a continuing champion of this subject for 3\3/4\ minutes, the distinguished gentlewoman from the District of Columbia, most deserving of statehood, Ms. Norton.

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished woman from the Virgin Islands, my good friend, Dr. Christensen.

Madam Speaker, before yielding, I would just like for my distinguished colleague to reference two cases, Michaels v. Anderson, and the action of the United States District Court.

And since you are so worried about the constitutionality, I would just urge that you read those two cases; it may add clarity.

I wish I had the time.

Madam Speaker, as a matter of fact, with your permission, how much time do we have?

Perhaps you can get some time from your side.

With that in mind, I had the good fortune, Madam Speaker, of traveling on two different occasions to American Samoa. I never met people that were more inclined to be patriots than the people of American Samoa. I had the good fortune of traveling there on each of those occasions with the gentleman now that I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to, my very good friend from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavega).

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

Madam Speaker, I heard someone say the vote counts, and it doesn't count. But every time I see the scroll indicating that another American soldier has died, that is a count that adds up, and that count is firm. The people of, the residents of Puerto Rico and the Delegates lose the lives of their soldiers in that count along with those of us from the respective States.

Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds merely to respond to the distinguished minority leader that we offered in the Rules Committee a motion that they denied, and that was to have an opportunity to have a substitute. An amendment was made in order if the gentleman had chosen to make that amendment, and he chose not to.

But I say to those who argue that there is symbolism involved here that indeed there is. But death is more than symbolism. Death is real, and the persons who die that come from the 5 million persons that these Delegates and the Resident Commissioner represent are real people. They and their families need this symbolism.

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield the balance of our time to the distinguished gentlewoman from Guam (Ms. Bordallo), my good friend.

Madam Speaker, do we have any time remaining at all?

In that 15 seconds, I would ask my friends, the

Delegates, if they would just stand and have America know something, that I am getting ready to cast a vote for them. They cannot cast a vote for themselves. How long does it take for 5 million people to be represented in this body?

I thank my colleagues.

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

Madam 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.