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 the gentlemen for yielding their time back and doing it in the spirit of bipartisanship.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that now that the 100 hours is out of the way and we are to the point of having the State of the Union, that we will see this body return to a format of regular order and regular process and rules that we have had in place and have respected and this body has abided by through the course of this great Nation. That would, indeed, be welcomed.

In the 100-hour agenda we have seen the majority party take action on some of the issues that they had chosen to address. Their 100-hour agenda has included legislation on student loans that really is not going to do anything to make loans more accessible and available to those students that are trying to get into college. It is not going to reduce the cost of college while it is there. And it will take effect

after a person has graduated and then is working and is looking at consolidating those loans and paying them back.

So that one was a little bit of a head-scratcher for a lot of our constituents because we have worked tirelessly to make college more affordable, to raise the caps on what could be loaned for students to get those Stafford loans, Pell Grants and increasing the funding for those, things that actually would make a difference, and that is an accomplishment of the Republican majority over the past decade.

Minimum wage. One of our colleagues had just mentioned minimum wage. And I will point out, Mr. Speaker, to the Members of this body that the actions that were taken on minimum wage, we heard from our small business community. Certainly small business employers that are in my district were very concerned about this. We have heard estimates of 5 to 7 to as much as $17 billion in costs that this would be to our small businesses. That is of tremendous concern. That is a cost that is going to get passed on.

That is a cost that is going to get passed on. And of course in the minimum wage bill, we had the unfortunate error of Tunagate that was crept into that bill somehow in one of the sessions as the bill was being drafted, and there again, not going through regular order in making its way to the House. And we hope that we will see that situation addressed.

And the tuna producers that American Samoa were exempted from that, American Samoa was exempted from that minimum wage. That is not fair to the rest of the tuna producers in this country. It is not fair to the rest of the companies that sell tuna and tuna products, and we do hope that there will be attention placed to that and that issue will be addressed, because it was a northern California, San Francisco, company that produced the tuna that is harvested in American Samoa. We do have concerns about favoritism that was shown there.

The Medicare bill that was passed in the first 100 hours will indeed yield additional costs to the VA. We have had some numbers there that are of quite concern, as much as three-quarters of a billion dollars that this would end up costing, be an additional cost to the veterans health care system, to our veterans for their pharmaceuticals.

And what we have heard from our seniors is that they are pleased with Medicare part D. They are pleased to have access to affordable health care. They are very pleased that prescriptions and pharmaceuticals and therapies that at one point they did not have, that they now have access to that.

It was a little bit of a head-scratcher, Mr. Speaker, that a program that has been so well received by our seniors, that the new majority would come along and say, well, we are going to change it. We are going to tweak it. It does not matter if it is working well.

And it leads us to question: Is it just they want programs that only they design and only they grow, or do they want programs that are going to be of service to the American people?

Another of the bills that came through was the 9/11 Commission implementation, not exactly what had been promised in campaign promises. But, you know, the new majority did take the bill up and did take action. And we have heard from a lot of our businesses that are in logistics and transportation with great concerns, great concerns about the cost.

Mr. Speaker, when you pass additional fees and additional mandates, and additional costs on to business, guess what? Ronald Reagan was right. It is the people that end up paying those costs. It is not businesses that are bearing those costs and absorbing them. They get passed on to you, to me, and to other consumers, the taxpayers, who see their costs go up because the business that they are doing business with is having to meet the mandates of who? Guess what? The mandates of the Federal Government.

So, yes, this has been a very expensive first 100 hours. And it has been troublesome in that regular order was not abided by, the bills were not going through committees and having hearings and having the due diligence process that we as Members of Congress are bound to do. And then they were just coming to the floor without those hearings.

I just had another of our colleagues mention something on health care. Of course, this is an issue that we know the President is going to speak a little bit about this evening. Before we move on to a couple of other points, I do want to make a couple of observations about health care and some of the discussion that was taking place on the issue of health care.

We know the President is going to talk about health care tonight. Now, the Republicans, the conservatives, have an approach that they think is a right approach. We think that it is appropriate for small businesses to be able to band together and come together under an umbrella and purchase health care, health coverage, health insurance for their employees.

That is very good. Our Nation has 40 million uninsured, and to be able to have groups come together, small businesses, let us say all of your florists, or all of your auto supply companies, or all of your plumbing companies, or companies that are a part of the Chamber of Commerce or other small business organizations, or women-owned businesses, businesses of like groups can come together and make that purchase of insurance.

It is called small business health plans or association health plans, very good idea for helping our Nation's 40 million uninsured, and the right type, the right type step because it helps make health care insurance affordable.

Mr. Speaker, that is positive. That is a free-market way to address the situation. It is a pro-small-business way to address the situation. It is the right step.

Another good step is allowing a tax deduction, $5,000, $7,500, for small business that buy insurance. That is the great step. That is the way it should be. You know, when you start looking at the end of the year and filling out your taxes, that is money that you have earned, and being able to take that deduction because you have done something that is right, way to go.

It should be incentivized. There should be deductions for that. And it is appropriate that that take place. Now, those are private sector, free market responses to addressing the health care situation. They work very well with the health savings accounts that were passed as part of the Medicare modernization when that bill came forward in 2003.

Health savings accounts have been tremendously popular. We now know that we have about 15 million Americans that are insured through health savings accounts. The number is growing. By 2010 we know that there will be over 20 million American families that are there and insured through health savings accounts, having the opportunity to take responsibility for their health care from dollar one.

And continuing to incentivize health savings accounts, tax deductions there. There again, it is a private sector, free-enterprise solution to the health care situation, more market-driven, allowing people to have control of access, to take control of their health care decisions, and to participate in those, have choice over who their physician is. Those are the right things to do.

Now, one of my colleagues just made a statement about the haves and the have-nots in health care, and made a statement that health care could be provided and, I think I am quoting this correctly, said: We could do it without any additional cost to the system.

Oh, Mr. Speaker, let me tell you, when I hear things like that, without any additional cost to the system, it certainly causes me to pay a little bit closer attention, because one of the things that we have realized, Mr. Speaker, is you know what? Nothing is free. There is nothing free. Nothing. There is no free lunch. There is nothing free in health care. Somebody is paying the bill.

What we see take place many times is cost shifting, and you will see costs shift within a system. Now, in my wonderful State of Tennessee, we have had an interesting situation take place. We have had a program that went into place in January 1, 1995. It is called TENNCARE, and it was basically a template for Hillary Clinton's health care plan. And one of the talking points on it was: There will be no additional costs. We will just spread out

the risk. We will allow those who are uninsured, up to so many percent of poverty, 400 percent of poverty, to come in and to access health care, and we will spread the risk. We will do it through managed care organizations. And managed care organizations can compete for the opportunity to provide this insurance.

Well, it has been a program that has had quite a bit of turmoil. We now see that nearly 30 percent of the individuals in our State are on the program, and it is eating up about 36 percent of our State's budget.

The reason for that, Mr. Speaker, is because whenever you are trying to give things for free, someone else is paying. In the case of TENNCARE, it has been the citizens of our State, the taxpayers of our State. And there is no way to ever keep up with the exponential growth of that program. So I would encourage all of my colleagues to be very, very thoughtful as we move forward on the health care debate.

There is no such thing as being free. There is no way to do this with no additional cost, because, as you try to make more things free, what happens is your access is restricted. What happens is you have fewer physicians who are available for those individuals that need those services. What have you when things are free is people flood into that State trying to get that for a reduced fee, and your own citizens of the State who need the program many times are not able to access it.

So I would step very cautiously as our colleagues on the other side of the aisle talk about health care that is going to be free, and universal health care and Hillary Clinton's health care plan. There are some pitfalls that are there, and they deserve to be recognized by the body of this House.

As we talk about health care, I would love to yield to the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Price, a distinguished Member of this body who is an expert on health care, for some of his thoughts on the issues of the day.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. Before I yield back to him for some further comments, I just want to highlight one of the things that he brought up as a physician, and someone who deals with this.

When you have a government-run program, what you are doing is putting bureaucrats in charge of your health care decisions, and you are removing that doctor-patient relationship many times. You are putting a barrier there between the individual and that doctor. Someone else that is removed from the process is making that decision; thereby it removes the patient many times from that decision process.

That is something that we do not want to see this Nation run toward. Our seniors, our families want to be able to participate in making those health care decisions for themselves. We are so pleased to know that the President will talk about, as I said earlier, the private sector free market-based approach to solving our health care problem.

Mr. Speaker, that is what it is going to require, innovation, thinking outside of the box and being certain of something we know: access, affordability, and preserving that doctor-patient relationship.

In my case, preserving health care for Tennesseeans. In the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price), preserving health care for Georgians. That is where our focus will be as we move forward on this discussion. We do not want a government-run, government-directed program that is going to place barriers between patients and the individuals that are making those decisions with their health care professionals.

I thank the gentleman for bringing that forward. The unintended consequences are many times what is so difficult to deal with. In theory to bureaucrats sitting in buildings, that sounded like a great deal: let's have everybody sign the forms.

In practice what happened for physicians, it was additional paperwork, additional staff, and removing the patient from the process, making it longer before they get a definitive diagnosis and know how to begin a protocol and treatment that will restore their health, things that impede a quality of life that our constituents desire.

So those unintended consequences many times get in the way. We are just very hopeful that we will continue the focus and that the Democrats will join

us in wanting a private sector, free-market solution to health care and not a government-run bureaucracy.

It does indeed. I thank the gentleman for yielding back.

Having this process that gets more and more convoluted every single day is of such concern to our constituents who just want to be able to go to the doctor, have a relationship with the doctor and know a little bit about what to expect.

As I said earlier, not knowing what to expect has been one of the interesting points that we have dealt with in this first 100 hours. I think that we all have been a little bit concerned about a bill that was brought forward on Friday. I know my constituents asked about it as they heard about it over the weekend. We talked about it on the floor some this morning, and this is allowing the Delegates voting rights.

I have had constituents say, well now, wouldn't that require an amendment to the Constitution? They remember when this debate took place at different times through history back in the 1970s and again in the early 1990s when there were those that wanted to give voting rights to our territories. They are very, very concerned about this, and rightfully so.

This morning on the floor earlier I quoted a comment that was made by the Democrat Speaker of the House in 1970, Tom Foley, who said: ``It is very clear that a constitutional amendment would be required to give Delegates a vote in the Committee of the Whole or in the full House.'' That was taken from a New York Times editorial.

Now, this is something that we have to realize, we hold our Constitution and the orderly process and the rule of law that is laid forth in that Constitution, we hold that to be meaningful. We recognize the necessity, Mr. Speaker, to respect the Constitution of this great land. We respect that it is built on one man, one vote and equal representation under the law.

So when we hear about giving the residents of our territories a vote, it is of concern to us and it does raise several succinct points that we have discussed on the floor today. It is a point worthy of discussion because it appears that since this has not gone through regular order and through the committee process, we haven't held hearings, this is nothing more than an unconstitutional power grab in order to try to move the new majority's agenda. It is of tremendous concern.

I yield to the gentleman from Georgia for some comments on the issue.

Mr. Speaker, repeating again from the Constitution that the representatives of this body are popularly elected from the several States, and that is so important, and I want to talk for just a moment about the size of our districts.

Mine is right around 700,000 people. We have some that I think are as low as 640,000, 650,000. They are going to vary just a little bit. But that is the size of them.

We do appreciate so much the guidance that is given by the Delegates from the territories. They are a valuable participation and a valuable addition and a wonderful and treasured resource of this body. We need their opinion and their input. But the Constitution does not allow for their having a vote.

I think in Guam we have about 155,000 people, and in American Samoa there are about 57,000 people.

So we look at one man, one vote and the equal representation, and then we have to say, my goodness, that is just really a far smaller number. That is the size of many of our towns or our counties that we represent when you have a district like mine. So I think that it is important for us to realize that.

And it is important for us also to realize that these are Delegates that will be able to vote to raise your taxes, but they are not paying those Federal income taxes, and that is of tremendous concern to our constituents.

Mr. Speaker, we have dubbed this time and again the ``hold on to your wallet Congress'' because it seems as if they are looking for ways to increase the cost of government and increase the size of that bureaucracy. And our concern is that this is another of those ways that would make it easier to raise your taxes.

And I yield back to the gentleman from Georgia.

I thank the gentleman.

And one of the things that we have our focus on as we prepare for the State of the Union tonight and for the work that is before us for the rest of this Congress is certainly making certain that we are successful in our efforts in Iraq and making certain that we are successful in the war on terror.

Mr. Speaker, our constituents know that this has been a long war. They know that the terrorists started attacking us over two decades ago, and they also know that on September 11 this Nation decided we were no longer going to respond to terrorist attacks as civil disobedience. What we were going to do was to change course, and we were going to respond to it as what it is: an act of war. And our constituents all know, especially constituents in my district, National Guard families, Reserve families, families at Fort Campbell that are in our district, they know that this is a very, very difficult time for our Nation, and it is a difficult time for our men and women in uniform. And they know that freedom is worth protecting.

And when I talk to those men and women, many who have been deployed in Afghanistan, have done two deployments in Iraq and know that they may be going back, they will say, Yes, we are going back because our job is not done. And they understand it, Mr. Speaker. And they know that we take a step forward and then we take a step or two back, and that it comes very slowly, and that progress is very slow.

We have seen, and our colleague John Shadegg had handed me an article from Real Clear Politics that pointed out some things that have been happening recently that just haven't caught the eye of the media, and I wish that they had because I would like for them to catch the eye of the American people.

First of all, there appears to be some retreating by al Qaeda from Baghdad because they know that troop levels are returning to where they were during the electoral process that took place in January of last year in Iraq. They know that the radical cleric, al Sadr, has decided to call off his boycott, and that his people are returning to participate in that newly formed Parliament, and they know that he is lowering his profile. And they also have seen Prime Minister al Maliki begin to take a change of course and to put some distance between himself and al Sadr. But this is of tremendous concern to us when we hear the naysayers talk about cutting funding and not supporting the troops.

And this morning I was on the floor speaking about our colleague Sam Johnson, who truly is a hero and has a wonderful piece of legislation that steps forward. It is House Resolution 511, and it really pushes forward on the idea of supporting our troops and funding these men and women who are in harm's way, making certain that they have what they need to do the job that is in front of them; sending the message to them that we stand with them and we are not going to desert them.

We know that this is difficult work. We know that it is a job, as I said, that is slow; that progress is slow. But, Mr. Speaker, as we stand here today preparing for the State of the Union, and as we expect to hear this evening from our Commander in Chief that the state of the Union is indeed strong, we also want these men and women in uniform to know that it is strong because of the work they do.

We have the ability to stand here every day and talk about freedom and defend freedom and talk about having a Nation that is so wonderful and so diverse that we all, each and every one of us, can pursue our dreams, can focus on hope and opportunity that is so important to us. We do that because men and women have put their life on the line, many times more than once, many times for days on end, to be certain that freedom remains. And we feel that it is appropriate to bring forward a resolution that says fund the troops and fund their needs.

We think that it is important that we move forward letting the men and women know that, when they are in the field, we are listening to them. We are listening to the troops. We are listening to the commanders, and we respect their judgment. That is an important message for us to send.

And I yield to the gentleman from Georgia for his comments.

I thank the gentleman.

I will close our hour by referencing some comments I have had from some veterans in my district. I love the fact that I have absolutely wonderful veterans who participate with me on these issues in our National Security Coalition, in our Veterans Coalition, which are advisory groups for me. And I have had great discussions with them and have sent them information about the new strategy going forward in Iraq, about some of the conversations that have been taking place here, and have sought their best judgment, men and women who have worn the uniform and have been there and who have fought and seeking their best judgment. And a couple of their comments, I think, are so incredibly significant.

One of them says: ``We have to continue our push forward and let our military make the decisions in this war. When the House and Senate changed, there was no doubt there would be a change of efforts. Our enemy knows this and will continue to strike as long as they think our country is not united.''

And another of the veterans said in this e-mail: ``What is important is that we show a unified front to the enemy and we give the new plan and the deployment a chance to work. If we win, if we defeat radical Islam, then maybe, maybe, this is all going to be worth it.''

Mr. Speaker, these men and women who have put that uniform on and have gone into battle know that this is the price that we pay. They understand that this is not going to be easy. They know, and they are watching the President's speech tonight, and they are watching our response. And I would submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that our enemy is watching our response. And I will submit to you that, while we all have different philosophies, we all come from different districts, and we are a very diverse body, I would commend to you and my colleagues that it is important that we stand with our men and women in uniform, that we show a unified front and show that we are committed to being certain that this Nation continues to stand as a great Nation and that we persevere.

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, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. I want to thank you for your leadership and your organization of this hour, and day in and day out of working here in the Congress to represent your constituents in Tennessee, but working so diligently on behalf of the hardworking American taxpayer out there, making certain that their interests are upheld here in the House of Representatives.

I appreciate you bringing up the issue of health care. There are a couple of things that I would be interested in talking about today. But the issue of health care is near and dear to my heart. As you mentioned, I am a physician, or was in my former life before coming to Congress, spent over 20 years in the private practice of orthopedic surgery outside Atlanta.

One thing that I knew for certain and that my patients knew for certain was that when doctors and patients are able to make health care decisions, then good decisions get made. When insurance companies or government inserts themselves into those decisions, then most often, most often those decisions do not resemble the kind of decisions that individual persons would make in very personal health care decisions that they have.

I appreciate the comments that you made. I would like to commend the President for putting on the table what I believe will be discussed tonight in his State of the Union; that is, the individual tax deductibility of health insurance. I have been a longtime supporter of the right of individuals to have the same kind of benefit that employers do in the purchase of health insurance.

So I am pleased that we have heard that that is indeed going to be a possibility brought forward by the President this evening. It would give so many people an opportunity to purchase health insurance that right now are not able to do so financially. So I look forward to that proposal coming forward tonight. And I would be happy to yield back to the gentlewoman and talk about some other issues if you so desire.

Sometimes it is hard to get your arms around what do you mean the government being involved in the process.

I would suggest to my colleagues here and others who are listening that we already see the inroads of some government decisions. One of them is what sounded wonderful at the time, the HIPAA legislation, Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, which was supposed to make every individual citizen in this Nation make their health records more secure and private. In fact, what that bill has done is make that information less private and more available to more individuals than ever before. That is because, as you well know when you go in to see your doctor, the first thing you have to do is sign a ream of documents. You feel like you are in a lawyer's office. You sign a ream of documents.

What you are doing when you sign those documents is providing so that the physician, when he or she shares your medical information with anybody, isn't liable for violating HIPAA. Medicine is a collegial activity. It requires that Dr. A communicate with Dr. B who communicates with Dr. C, and they get together and come up with the best solution for anybody's health problem.

When you are not able to share that information, the quality of health care goes down. What has happened because the government had this brilliant idea to get involved in the process is to say we will make it so that your information cannot be shared with anybody unless you give your permission. So because Dr. Smith doesn't know when he or she is going to run into Dr. Jones to discuss that case, it is imperative that every single patient sign away their right to any privacy so the doctor can communicate when that time arises.

What the government has done by putting these rules in place, which sounded wonderful, but what the government has done is made it so every single patient in this Nation, their medical information is less private and less secure than it was before governmental intervention.

If the gentlewoman would yield, I appreciate that description of a free market private system health care. I call it patient centered when I am talking about private because it means that patients are empowered to do what they feel is appropriate in their instance.

When you have a medical problem or when somebody else has a medical problem, their decision about what they want to do to treat that may not be what mine would be or my family's would be. It is only when individuals get to make those personal decisions that we are able to make certain that patient-centered health care exists.

When we try to describe what the future may be if our friends on the other side of the aisle had their way and put in place a government system that they tried to do in the early 1990s, all you have to do is think about the last time you were at your doctor's and you needed a test or an X-ray or some type of procedure done. Well, it is very likely that discussion and education that you got as a patient with your physician didn't last terribly long and you came to an understanding and agreement about what would happen next.

What you may not have known what happens next is one of those employees in that office then gets on the phone and talks to the insurance company to make certain that it is okay. Most often we have gotten that process down to be relatively streamlined. But can you imagine if we put the government in charge of health care and you had to get on the phone and get the government's permission, Washington's permission, so you could have an MRI or biopsy or some other procedure? That is what is looming.

The problem is now just time and inconvenience. The problem is that if you, in order to have that happen and to be effective from the government, from Washington's viewpoint, if you were not to follow those rules, there would be significant punishment. In fact, you would violate the law.

So what we saw in the early 1990s in the proposal that was put on the table, if you as a patient or a physician were to do something that wasn't allowed by the government, that would be a crime. It wouldn't just be a bad decision; it would be a crime.

So what our friends on the other side of the aisle are in fact proposing in the small print, and I know they like bumper-sticker politics, I know they like to give these glorious titles to things, and they sound wonderful, but when you get down to the fine print, what you see, especially in the area of health care that I feel so passionately about, when you get down to the fine print, what it means is that patients and doctors will be exposed to criminal violations if they don't follow what Washington says they ought to do. That concerns me very, very greatly; and I know it does you.

I yield back.

I thank the gentlewoman for yielding and her leadership on this issue.

The issue we are talking about is House Resolution 78, H. Res. 78. As the gentlewoman mentioned, it was just brought up as a possibility that we would be voting on it this week this past Friday. I would venture to say, Mr. Speaker, that in your race and I know in my race and I doubt in anybody's race around this Nation, save possibly the elections in the territories, did anyone ever address the issue of Delegates voting on the floor of the House of Representatives. I can honestly say I don't know of anybody who used that as an issue that they ran on in November.

We all appreciate that the American people were interested in change when they voted in November, but I'm with you: I don't think that the American people were interested in this kind of change, this kind of change that I believe to be unconstitutional.

When I go to schools, middle schools and high schools, around my district and I talk to students and we talk about the process of government, oftentimes I will ask them a question: Can we make any law we want in the House of Representatives? Can we make any law in Congress we want?

Sometimes you will get some folks that say yeah; but most often the young men and women and boys and girls in my district and I know across this Nation know and understand and appreciate that the guiding principles that we follow here are defined in the Constitution. I know that it is challenging sometimes for people to be held to make certain that they follow the Constitution, because there are some really stiff rules in this Constitution.

But one of the ones at the very beginning, article I, is about the legislative branches, as you well know, Mr. Speaker, and I believe article I was about the legislative branch because the Founders knew the incredible importance of the representative branch of government, the legislative branch of government. And section 1 is about all powers being vested in the House and Senate. Article I, section 2 states: ``The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second year by the people of the several States.''

It didn't mention anything about territories, Delegates from territories. I am so pleased, and we are really aided by the representation in the committees by the Delegates from the territories, by the Resident Commissioner from Puerto Rico, by the Delegates from Guam, the Virgin Islands and American Samoa, and by the Delegate from the District of Columbia, but clearly they do not represent States.

In this Chamber, Mr. Speaker, when we gather as a Committee of the Whole or as the House of Representatives, it is clear that the Founders and that our Constitution states that an individual to vote in that instance must be a Member of the House and a representative of the State.

I thank you so much for yielding. And I appreciate your bringing up that point because it is so important and really so basic to our Nation.

Our Nation began for a variety of reasons, but not the least of which is that our Founding Fathers believed that they were being taxed without any ability to have representation in the body that was deciding whether or not to tax them. They had taxation without representation.

Well, this is really turning it on its head because, as you mentioned, the individuals, the people in American Samoa, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, wonderful people that they are, but they are not obligated to pay any Federal income tax. None. So what we would be doing would be allowing Members, individuals in this House of Representatives who would be described as Members, to vote on whether or not to raise income taxes, but not be affected personally and not have the people that they represent be affected. So that would be representation without taxation. And I simply believe and I think that our constituents believe across this Nation that that is fundamentally wrong. Fundamentally wrong.

And I want to get back for just a moment to the issue of one person/ one vote, because when people say, well, it does not make a whole lot of difference if the districts are a little bit different size. What difference does that make? But, again, our Founders knew and understood wisely that every Member of this House of Representatives ought to represent essentially the same number of people so that when individuals at home, citizens at home, vote for their representative, their vote counts basically the same as every other citizen of this Nation. And when you have districts that are one-tenth the size of other districts, which, as you mentioned, American Samoa has a population of about 57,000, 58,000, and most of our districts are around 650,000; so that means that every person in American Samoa who votes, their vote counts 10 times, 10 times the amount that your vote and my vote and every other American citizen's vote counts. And that, Mr. Speaker, and ladies and gentlemen, and colleagues of the House of Representatives, one, is not fair; and, two, it is not the way our Founders envisioned anybody voting in this House of Representatives.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding. And it is so important. And I appreciate your bringing up Congressman Johnson's resolution. I spoke for a brief moment on the floor earlier about that as well.

And I know that in this Chamber we can disagree about a lot of things, and we should. Our system works best when ideas are exchanged and the best solutions rise to the top, because it really

is a battle of ideas. But in this instance we can disagree, as I mentioned, about many things, but we ought not disagree about whether or not our men and women in harm's way, our troops who are defending liberty truly around the globe, ought to receive every single resource that they need in order to defend themselves and to defend us.

I know that many folks go to Walter Reed and visit some of those brave men and women who have been injured in battle. I have had the opportunity to do that, and I was struck always by every conversation that I had with some of those men and women who have come back, some with devastating injuries, truly. And I am just so humbled by those conversations that I have with those brave soldiers and warriors because I would try to close every conversation and ask them what it was that we could do to help. What can I do to help? And virtually every single one of them said without fail, Congressman, if you can do one thing, if you can do just one thing, please, please let me get back to my unit. And that kind of enthusiasm, that kind of commitment, that kind of sense of duty and honor and patriotism is chilling. It really is.

There are incredible stories that each of them tell, but also I believe those men and women serve as a guidepost for us. And, in fact, we ought to look to them and look to their courage to have the courage that we need in order to support our men and women who are in harm's way.

And I am very hopeful that this House of Representatives will support Congressman Johnson's resolution because it truly speaks for, I believe, the vast majority of the American people who want to make certain that, regardless of how you feel about this conflict, we as a Congress state clearly that we will make certain that we provide all of the resources necessary for our men and women in harm's way.

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.