Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 518, the International Solid Waste Importation and Management Act of 2007. H.R. 518 adds a new section to the Solid Waste Disposal Act requiring the Environmental Protection Agency to implement and enforce the ``notice and consent'' provisions of a bilateral U.S.-Canadian Agreement signed in 1986 to govern the transboundary movement of hazardous waste. This agreement was amended in 1992 to include municipal solid waste, but neither administration since then has made any effort to implement the bilateral agreement. Enforcement legislation promised ``soon'' by the present administration almost 4 years ago has yet to arrive. H.R. 518 provides criteria to ensure that the views of the affected State and local governments are properly taken into account, and it adds the necessary statutory enforcement authority.

According to the most recent information for fiscal year 2006, the largest source of waste imported into Michigan continues to be from Canada, with total reported imports to landfills of more than 12 million cubic yards. That is a 23 percent increase from fiscal year 2003. Even more disturbing is that the amount of Canadian waste being disposed of in Michigan has risen by 335 percent since 1996, when Michigan began collecting data.

Riverview and other downriver communities in my district have had to cope with hundreds of trucks full of Canadian trash rumbling down their streets on a daily basis for years. These trucks pass through our communities en route from the Ambassador Bridge to traffic dumps to the west. You can imagine the traffic congestion, environmental, and quality-of-life problems these truckloads of trash have created.

Local activists like Mr. George Read of Trenton and State Representative Kathleen Law have been working tirelessly alongside our congressional delegation to put an end to this never-ending flow of trash, and I am very pleased that the House today is taking a step toward that goal.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the Tulsa- Greenwood Riot Accountability Act of 2007, along with Representative Nadler. This legislation will extend the statute of limitations to allow the survivors of the Tulsa-Greenwood Riot of 1921 to seek a determination on the merits of their civil rights and other claims against the perpetrators of the riot in a court of law.

The Greenwood neighborhood of Tulsa, OK, was one of the Nation's most prosperous African-American communities entering the decade of the 1920s. Serving over 8,000 residents, the community boasted two newspapers, over a dozen churches, and hundreds of African-American owned businesses, with the commercial district known nationally as the ``Negro Wall Street.'' In May 1921, all that came to an end as 42 square blocks of the community were burned to the ground and up to 300 of its residents were killed by a racist mob. In the wake of the violence, the State and local governments quashed claims for redress and effectively erased the incident from official memory.

The 1921 Tulsa race riot was one of the most destructive and costly attacks upon an American community in our Nation's history. However, no convictions were obtained for the incidents of murder, arson or larceny connected with the riot, and none of the more than 100 contemporaneously filed lawsuits by residents and property owners were successful in recovering damages from insurance companies to assist in the reconstruction of the community.

The case of the Tulsa-Greenwood riot victims is worthy of congressional attention because substantial evidence suggests that governmental officials deputized and armed the mob and that the National Guard joined in the destruction. The report commissioned by the Oklahoma State Legislature in 1997, and published in 2001, uncovered new information and detailed, for the first time, the extent of the involvement by the State and city government in prosecuting and erasing evidence of the riot. This new evidence was crucial for the formulation of a substantial case, but its timeliness raised issues at law, and resulted in a dismissal on statute of limitation grounds. In dismissing the survivors' claims, however, the court found that extraordinary circumstances might support extending the statute of limitations, but that Congress did not establish rules applicable to the case at bar. With this legislation, we have the opportunity to provide closure for a group of claimants--all over 90 years old--and the ability to close the book on a tragic chapter in history.

Racism, and its violent manifestations, are part of this Nation's past that we cannot avoid. With the prosecution of historical civil rights claims, both civil and criminal, we encourage a process of truth and reconciliation which can heal historic wounds. In this case, the court took ``no great comfort'' in finding that there was no legal avenue through which the plaintiffs could bring their claims. The Tulsa-Greenwood Riot Accountability Act would simply give Tulsans and all Oklahomans, white and black, victims and non-victims, their day in court. Without that opportunity, we will all continue to be victims of our past.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 317, I call up the bill (H.R. 1905) to provide for the treatment of the District of Columbia as a Congressional district for purposes of representation in the House of Representatives, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 1905, the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2007.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin the debate on this measure by yielding myself as much time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, this past Monday on April 16, Emancipation Day, District of Columbia residents and others gathered by the thousands at Freedom Plaza and marched to the Capitol, calling on Congress to ``demand the vote.''

On that day in 1862, President Abraham Lincoln signed the District of Columbia Compensated Emancipation Act, freeing approximately 3,100 men, women and children who were held in bondage. That was several months before, of course, President Lincoln's issue of the Emancipation Proclamation on New Year's Day, 1863.

I stand before my colleagues in the House today and cannot help but note that the District of Columbia was the starting point for the Emancipation President, as he was called, but it still does not have the full voting franchise that is at the heart of U.S. citizenship. This hardly seems right, and we have come today, assembled again to correct this.

Monday's marchers sent a message to Congress: District residents have had enough of ``taxation without representation.'' That is a message that all Americans and all students of American history should understand. District residents just want what Americans elsewhere enjoy: a full share in American democracy.

This simple but compelling message has reached Congress, and today we are acting on it. Today we will do our part to correct a 200-year-old injustice. We have a constitutionally sound, bipartisan, politically balanced response that will give, at last, citizens of the District of Columbia full representation in the House.

The United States is the only democracy in the world, ladies and gentlemen, where citizens living in the capital city are denied representation in their legislature. Almost 600,000 people who call the District of Columbia home, who pay taxes, go off to war, and observe the other responsibilities of citizenship still do not have a vote in the Congress.

At Monday's march, we heard from a District of Columbia veteran who was one of the first soldiers sent to Iraq in March, 2003, and as a dual citizen of the United States and Iraq, he can participate fully in the Iraqi democratic process which includes electing voting members of the Iraqi National Legislature, but as a resident of the District of Columbia, his rights as a U.S. citizen are limited.

Well, his day has come, as well as for that of all of the citizens of this great District of Columbia. I hope that we can move this debate through as efficiently and as effectively as possible, and move toward a finish of a job that we have undertaken in more than one Congress.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure now to yield 1 minute to the distinguished Speaker of the House of Representatives, Ms. Nancy Pelosi.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to add 2 minutes on to Mr. Davis' allotted time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to turn now to the chairman of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Jerry Nadler of New York, and recognize him for 3 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, before I yield to the distinguished gentleman from Alabama, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Ladies and gentlemen, we have here a very interesting constitutional question. My good friend and distinguished member of the Judiciary Committee I think has raised four, maybe five points that disturb him greatly, but the main one is that it is unconstitutional. The point of the matter is that there are those who think it is constitutional and those who think it is unconstitutional. Can't we let the courts decide this besides 435 great lawyers working on this?

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Artur Davis.

Mr. Speaker, we are pleased to have on our Judiciary Committee the gentleman from Georgia, the distinguished lawyer and judge, Hank Johnson, to whom I yield 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 1 minute to the Delegate from the District of Columbia, Eleanor Holmes Norton.

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure now to yield 3 minutes to the gentlelady from Houston, Texas, Sheila Jackson-Lee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased now to recognize a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, Maxine Waters of California, for 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, did the gentleman from Indiana desire 2 minutes from our side?

I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Cummings).

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Moran).

(Mr. MORAN of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn) for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished majority leader, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 15 seconds to my colleague from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) for a unanimous consent request.

(Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlelady from Florida (Ms. Corrine Brown) for a unanimous consent request.

(Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield now to a member of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Steve Cohen of Tennessee, for 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I now yield 1 minute to Danny Davis, the distinguished Member of Congress from Illinois.

Mr. Speaker, it is now time for us to hear the Delegate from the District of Columbia. I am honored to yield to Eleanor Holmes Norton 5 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of the time remaining on our side.

I begin by commending my colleagues in the Congress on the debate that has occurred today. It has been civil, it has been honest, and the disagreements, both constitutionally and otherwise, have been very clearly spread upon the record.

And why is that so? Well, because we had the same debate 27 days ago. That is why. We have all been through this for every argument, for every constitutional expert opinion that is regularly volunteered.

And, look, I have articulated my belief that a measure that we are debating is unconstitutional as frequently as anybody on the other side. I don't know what our collective batting averages of being accurate are, but that is for the courts to decide, and I think that we all agree to that.

The District of Columbia residents want no more than what the Founding Fathers wanted. And, by the way, for those who wonder why we didn't make them a State right off the bat, at that time there may have been 150 people living in this swampy area that is now known as D.C. We didn't have anybody to make citizens.

So join me, join us in this historic moment and pass the bill. It is high time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to commend my friend from Texas (Mr. Smith). His arguments are cogent and our relationship on the committee is excellent.

But I must comment as to the argument that our bill allows the District of Columbia to have both a Representative and a Delegate. We fully intend to

repeal the Delegate part of it by separate statute as soon as we get the bill that will allow the District to have a Representative.

We have had lots of debate, and he has quoted Professor Turley, who has made the most extreme statement, his personal beliefs. And we invited him as a panelist, but he has been profoundly in the minority on a number of other issues as well. So I do not regard his opinion as having any more or less importance or significance than any of the other constitutional experts that we heard.

Now, here is the problem. We would, if this motion to recommit were passed, provide for two things: expedited review of this matter and standing to all Members of Congress to challenge the constitutionality of the bill before us. Four hundred thirty-five Members would be granted standing. Why? Are there not enough constitutional lawyers and supporters and opponents on both sides to take care of this matter, rather than to have the Supreme Court filled with Members of Congress wanting to vent probably very repetitious views?

This is a motion based on an amendment which has been debated and defeated in the Judiciary Committee when we considered an earlier version of this bill only weeks ago.

Now, I recognize and appreciate that the motion is being offered in good faith to amend the bill. However, as I have stated before, it is my concern that this recommit motion will do far more harm than it could ever cause good.

I am concerned that the motion puts Congress down on record as believing that the bill is constitutionally weak. It is not, and therefore, I cannot support a motion to recommit that would make this concession. Nothing could be further from the truth.

We have had hearings on top of hearings from everyone who claimed to be a constitutional expert on this subject anywhere in the Judiciary Committee. We have heard from everybody on both sides of the aisle over the last several Congresses, and based on the record, there is ample precedent for the Congress, using the District clause as authority for this legislation as they have for taxes, for diversity, for labor and numerous other matters. Clearly, this bill falls within the general line of authority.

Now, concerning expedited judicial review in this motion, the courts are perfectly capable of handling the issue. There are judicial standards for dealing with expedited review, namely, when there is a showing of irreparable harm. Nobody has mentioned that as a reason for having expedited review. Irreparable harm coming and giving the Delegate of this District the right to vote? We have statutes on the books that cover this very issue already.

We did not provide expedited review of such controversial laws as the PATRIOT Act, parts of which have actually been held, subsequently, unconstitutional. Yet, the issue was readily dealt with by the courts.

The courts will readily deal with this issue as well. And I am strongly opposed to the idea of Congress passing laws that confer unique standing on themselves or special rights to intervene in pending lawsuits.

You can always become amicus curiae, and so for those reasons and others, I urge that this motion to recommit be turned down.

Mr. Speaker, to subcommittee Chairman Bobby Scott we owe a debt of gratitude, as well as to subcommittee Ranking Member Coble and, of course, the author of this bill, Elton Gallegly, who through the years has persevered to make us finally come to this day. I guess we should also thank about 303 Members of the House of Representatives that have stuck with us and supported this legislation all this time. My congratulations to all of you. I never thought that a measure that was not considered as grave and large as some of the issues that come before the House Judiciary Committee would meet with so much encouragement and support to get us to this day. I congratulate the House of Representatives and the leadership on both sides.

I join, of course, in this measure and would like to make this point: this legislation includes a special provision clarifying the fact that it only supersedes State law in the case of a direct or irreconcilable conflict. The Humane Society is with us. The American Veterinary Medical Association is with us. The National Association of Sheriffs is with us, and hundreds and hundreds of local law enforcement agencies in every State of the Union have all come out in support of this basic, commonsense, long overdue legislation.

I thank those who have worked so tirelessly across the years to bring us to this day where this bill has now come before the floor.

I'm pleased to join the growing list of supporters, including the 30 or so Members of the Judiciary Committee, that have decided to lend their support to this measure.

For far too long, the sponsors of abusive animal fighting events (including cockfight and dog fight promoters) have been permitted to freely engage in such activities without any real fear of prosecution. Fortunately, the bill before us seeks to change that.

First, the legislation provides up to the three years in jail for people who transport animals in interstate commerce with the purpose of participating in an animal fighting venture. Current law only treats such offenses as a mere misdemeanor. However, research has shown us that simple misdemeanor criminal penalties

don't provide enough of a meaningful deterrent, especially when thousands of dollars are wagered on a single dog or cock fight.

Second, the legislation makes it unlawful to sell or ship instruments in interstate commerce that are designed to be attached to the leg of a bird for use in an animal fighting venture. Razor sharp knives, commonly known as ``slashers'', are oftentimes attached to the legs of a bird to make cockfights even more violent. This provision would prohibit such activity, and subject any violators to a term of imprisonment of up to three years in jail.

Finally, the legislation includes a special provision clarifying that this measure only supersedes state law in the case of a direct or irreconcilable conflict.

The Humane Society, the American Veterinary Medical Association, the National Sheriffs Association, and nearly 400 local law enforcement agencies covering all 50 states have all come out in support of this legislation.

I strongly urge my colleagues to lend their support to this bipartisan, commonsense measure as well.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 580) to amend chapter 35 of title 28, United States Code, to provide for a 120-day limit to the term of a United States attorney appointed on an interim basis by the Attorney General, and for other purposes, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, the measure before us today has been introduced by the gentleman from California, a ranking member of the committee and a subcommittee Chair, Howard Berman. It is intended to restore the historical checks and balances to the process by which interim U.S. Attorneys are appointed. It will repair a breach in the law that has been a major contributing factor in the recent termination of eight able and experienced United States Attorneys and their replacement with interim appointments. It has gathered much attention across this Nation, and not just in government and legal circles.

The full circumstances surrounding these terminations are still coming to light, but what we know is already very troubling. The reports about these terminations are particularly troubling in that the United States Attorneys are among the most powerful government officials we have. They have the power to seek convictions and bring the full weight of the United States Government against any citizen or company that they deem important and eligible for prosecution. They can negotiate plea agreements. They can send people to prison for years and years. And frequently, the mere disclosure of a criminal investigation can destroy reputations and careers.

These are awesome powers. And so we on the Judiciary Committee consider it absolutely essential that the American people have full confidence in those entrusted to exercise these powers and that they do so with complete integrity and free from political influence of any kind.

The committee's investigation into these troubling circumstances is continuing. The longer time goes on, the more we know; and the more we know, the more we are troubled about what has been going on in the Department of Justice. It has already become abundantly clear that the gaping vulnerability in the law, which has placed the independence and integrity of our prosecutorial system in jeopardy, needs to be repaired as quickly as possible; and that is what we are here to do today.

What helped bring these troubling circumstances about, what helped make it possible for high-level Justice Department and White House officials to even entertain the notion that they could, as appears to be the case, target certain U.S. Attorneys for an unprecedented mid- course purge was an obscure provision adequately and anonymously slipped into the USA PATRIOT Reauthorization Act conference report in March of 2006. Without any debate, let alone the benefit of a single hearing in either body, this provision, added at the behest of the Justice Department's top political appointees to significantly enhance the power to appoint interim U.S. Attorneys without having to subject their appointments to customary safeguard of Senate confirmation. It was a middle-of-the-night insertion, and we are here to correct that.

Indeed, the administration's plan to exploit the new provision to bypass the Senate confirmation process is now well documented. As bluntly explained

by internal e-mails we received, and they now number in the hundreds, although we get them late on Friday nights, by the Attorney General's then-chief of staff, for example, discussing their plan to install the former Republican National Committee political operative, the new provision would enable them to ``give far less deference to home State Senators and thereby get our preferred person appointed and do it far faster and more efficiently at less political cost to the White House.''

This is outrageous. The Senate has already acted. The time is now. We need to move as rapidly as we can to correct this very serious error that casts a question upon the integrity of a very, very important part of our government, the Department of Justice.

Speaker, the bill before us today, introduced by my friend Howard Berman, will restore the historical checks and balances to the process by which interim U.S. Attorneys are appointed. It will repair a breach in the law that has been a major contributing factor in the recent termination of eight able and experienced United States Attorneys and their replacement with interim appointments.

The full circumstances surrounding these terminations are still coming to light, but what we know already is very troubling.

In one instance, the primary apparent qualification for the President's chosen replacement was that he had been an aggressive political operative at the Republican National Committee, thereby putting himself on Karl Rove's A list. In several other instances, the U.S. Attorney was in the midst of a sensitive public corruption investigation, and there were reportedly complaints from Republicans that the investigation was being pursued too aggressively against a fellow Republican, or was not being pursued aggressively enough against a Democrat.

The reports about these terminations are particularly troubling in that U.S. Attorneys are among our most powerful government officials. They not only have power to seek convictions and negotiate plea agreements that can send people to prison for years. The mere disclosure of a criminal investigation can destroy reputations and careers.

These are awesome powers, and it is absolutely essential that the American people can have full confidence those entrusted to exercise these powers do so with complete integrity and free from improper political influence.

The Committee's investigation into these troubling circumstances is continuing, and we will know more, and we will leave extended discussion of them for another day. But it has already become abundantly clear that the gaping vulnerability in the law, which has placed the independence and integrity of our prosecutorial system in jeopardy, needs to be repaired as quickly as possible. And that is what we are here to do today.

What helped bring these troubling circumstances about--what helped make it possible for high-level Justice Department and White House officials to even entertain the notion that they could, as appears to be the case, target certain U.S. Attorneys for an unprecedented mid- course purge--was an obscure provision quietly and anonymously slipped into the USA PATRIOT Reauthorization Act conference report in March 2006.

Without any I debate, let alone the benefit of a single hearing in either body, this provision was added at the behest of the Justice Department's top political appointees, to significantly enhance their power to appoint interim U.S. Attorneys, without having to subject the appointments to the customary safeguard of Senate confirmation.

Indeed, the Administration's deliberate plan to exploit the new provision to bypass the Senate confirmation process is now well documented. As bluntly explained in an internal e-mail by the Attorney General's then chief of staff, for example, discussing their plan to install the former RNC political operative, the new provision would enable them to ``give far less deference to home-State Senators and thereby get (1) our preferred person appointed and (2) do it far faster and more efficiently, at less political cost to the White House.''

Traditionally--since the Civil War--whenever a U.S. Attorney left office, and until the Senate could confirm a replacement, the local federal district court has appointed someone to fill the position on an interim basis. This was a neutral means of ensuring that permanent appointments remained the shared responsibility of the President and the Senate--to encourage the President to send a nomination to the Senate promptly, and to encourage the Senate to act promptly on the nomination.

In 1986, at the request of Attorney General Ed Meese, the law was modified to authorize the Attorney General to make short-term interim U.S. Attorney appointments, for up to 120 days. But if a permanent U.S. Attorney had not been confirmed by the end of that 120 days, the district court retained authority to make the appointment for the remainder of the interim period. This procedure, codified in 28 U.S.C. Sec. 546, preserved the incentives on the Executive and Legislative Branches to work together on the nomination and confirmation of a permanent replacement.

That balanced approach was unceremoniously jettisoned a year ago, and with it respect for the Senate's role in ensuring that the President's power to hire and fire U.S. Attorneys at will was not abused at the expense of prosecutorial integrity.

The stealth provision in the 2006 USA PATRIOT Reauthorization Act completely removed the district court as a backstop in the interim appointment process, turning over sole power to the Attorney General, to unilaterally make interim appointments, for an unlimited time, with no obligation to involve the Senate, or the Judicial Branch, or anyone else.

H.R. 580 will restore the checks and balances that have historically provided a critical safeguard against politicization of U.S. Attorneys. First, it repeals the 2006 change to section 546, keeping the Attorney General's interim appointment role, but limiting it to 120 days, as it was before.

Second, the bill clarifies that section 546 is the only way to make interim U.S. Attorney appointments. This additional change has become necessary in light of indications, documented by the Congressional Research Service, that the Justice Department has used, and could again use, the Federal Vacancies Reform Act to evade the intent of a tightened section 546.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is an important step in restoring legal safeguards against abuse of Executive power to politicize core government functions that need to be above political calculations in their execution. I urge my colleagues to support this important legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 15 seconds only to say, Mr. Howard Coble, I recognize you as a sincere and experienced and valued member of this committee, and I appreciate the circumstances that you are in this evening.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the subcommittee chairwoman, Linda Sanchez of California, and I thank her for the excellent job that she has done.

Mr. Speaker, I recognize Howard Berman, the senior member on the Judiciary Committee, and thank him for his authorship of the measure that brings us to the floor this evening. I yield to him 5 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on either side?

I recognize the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) for 1 minute.

The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) is recognized for 2 minutes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Texas, Sheila Jackson-Lee, 1 minute.

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

Mr. Speaker, Members of the House, the American people must have full confidence in the integrity and the independence of the United States Attorneys in charge of Federal prosecutions throughout the country, in every State. While they owe the President their appointments, once they are in their jobs their enforcement decisions must be unquestionably above politics; and that is why we are here today.

Senate confirmation is required for each one of them in an open and public process, and it is a critical safeguard against politicization of our prosecutorial system. This safeguard has been severely compromised by the secret change that has been referred to, and this bill restores the safeguards.

I ask my colleagues to fully support this measure on both sides of the aisle.

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

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

Madam Speaker, in accordance with clause 2(a) of rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, I respectfully submit the rules of the Committee on the Judiciary for printing in the Congressional Record. The Committee on the Judiciary adopted these rules by voice vote, a quorum being present, at our organizational meeting on January 24, 2007.

Committee on the Judiciary, Rules of Procedure, One Hundred Tenth

Congress, Adopted January 24, 2007

Rule I. The Rules of the House of Representatives are the

rules of the Committee on the Judiciary and its Subcommittees

with the following specific additions thereto.

rule ii. committee meetings

(a) The regular meeting day of the Committee on the

Judiciary for the conduct of its business shall be on

Wednesday of each week while the House is in session.

(b) Additional meetings may be called by the Chairman and a

regular meeting of the Committee may be dispensed with when,

in the judgment of the Chairman, there is no need therefor.

(c) At least 24 hours (excluding Saturdays, Sundays and

legal holidays when the House is not in session) before each

scheduled Committee or Subcommittee meeting, each Member of

the Committee or Subcommittee shall be furnished a list of

the bill(s) and subject(s) to be considered and/or acted upon

at the meeting. Bills or subjects not listed shall be subject

to a point of order unless their consideration is agreed to

by a two-thirds vote of the Committee or Subcommittee.

(d) In an emergency that does not reasonably allow for 24

hours' notice, the Chairman may waive the 24-hour notice

requirement with the agreement of the Ranking Minority

Member.

(e) Committee and Subcommittee meetings for the transaction

of business, i.e. meetings other than those held for the

purpose of taking testimony, shall be open to the public

except when the Committee or Subcommittee determines by

majority vote to close the meeting because disclosure of

matters to be considered would endanger national security,

would compromise sensitive law enforcement information, or

would tend to defame, degrade or incriminate any person or

otherwise would violate any law or rule of the House.

(f) Every motion made to the Committee and entertained by

the Chairman shall be reduced to writing upon demand of any

Member, and a copy made available to each Member present.

(g) For purposes of taking any action at a meeting of the

full Committee or any Subcommittee thereof, a quorum shall be

constituted by the presence of not less than one-third of the

Members of the Committee or subcommittee, except that a full

majority of the Members of the Committee or Subcommittee

shall constitute a quorum for purposes of reporting a measure

or recommendation from the Committee or Subcommittee, closing

a meeting to the public, or authorizing the issuance of a

subpoena.

(h)(1) Subject to subparagraph (2), the Chairman may

postpone further proceedings

when a record vote is ordered on the question of approving

any measure or matter or adopting an amendment. The Chairman

may resume proceedings on a postponed request at any time.

(2) In exercising postponement authority under subparagraph

(1), the Chairman shall take all reasonable steps necessary

to notify Members on the resumption of proceedings on any

postponed record vote.

(3) When proceedings resume on a postponed question,

notwithstanding any intervening order for the previous

question, an underlying proposition shall remain subject to

further debate or amendment to the same extent as when the

question was postponed.

(i) Transcripts of markups shall be recorded and may be

published in the same manner as hearings before the

Committee.

(j) Without further action of the Committee, the Chairman

is directed to offer a motion under clause 1 of rule XXII of

the Rules of the House of Representatives whenever the

Chairman considers it appropriate.

rule iii. hearings

(a) The Committee Chairman or any Subcommittee chairman

shall make public announcement of the date, place, and

subject matter of any hearing to be conducted by it on any

measure or matter at least one week before the commencement

of that hearing. If the Chairman of the Committee, or

Subcommittee, with the concurrence of the Ranking Minority

Member, determines there is good cause to begin the hearing

sooner, or if the Committee or Subcommittee so determines by

majority vote, a quorum being present for the transaction of

business, the Chairman or Subcommittee chairman shall make

the announcement at the earliest possible date.

(b) Committee and Subcommittee hearings shall be open to

the public except when the Committee or Subcommittee

determines by majority vote to close the meeting because

disclosure of matters to be considered would endanger

national security, would compromise sensitive law enforcement

infor- mation, or would tend to defame, degrade or

incriminate any person or otherwise would violate any law

or rule of the House.

(c) For purposes of taking testimony and receiving evidence

before the Committee or any Subcommittee, a quorum shall be

constituted by the presence of two Members.

(d) In the course of any hearing each Member shall be

allowed five minutes for the interrogation of a witness until

such time as each Member who so desires has had an

opportunity to question the witness.

(e) The transcripts of those hearings conducted by the

Committee which are decided to be printed shall be published

in verbatim form, with the material requested for the record

inserted at that place requested, or at the end of the

record, as appropriate. Individuals, including Members of

Congress, whose comments are to be published as part of a

Committee document shall be given the opportunity to verify

the accuracy of the transcription in advance of publication.

Any requests by those Members, staff or witnesses to correct

any errors other than errors in the transcription, or

disputed errors in transcription, shall be appended to the

record, and the appropriate place where the change is

requested will be footnoted. Prior to approval by the

Chairman of hearings conducted jointly with another

congressional Committee, a memorandum of understanding shall

be prepared which incorporates an agreement for the

publication of the verbatim transcript.

Rule IV. Broadcasting

Whenever a hearing or meeting conducted by the Committee or

any Subcommittee is open to the public, those proceedings

shall be open to coverage by television, radio and still

photography except when the hearing or meeting is closed

pursuant to the Committee Rules of Procedure.

Rule V. Standing Subcommittees

(a) The full Committee shall have jurisdiction over the

following subject matters: antitrust law, tort liability,

including medical malpractice and product liability, legal

reform generally, and such other matters as determined by the

Chairman.

(b) There shall be five standing Subcommittees of the

Committee on the Judiciary, with jurisdictions as follows:

(1) Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual

Property: copyright, patent and trademark law, information

technology, administration of U.S. courts, Federal Rules of

Evidence, Civil and Appellate Procedure, judicial ethics,

other appropriate matters as referred by the Chairman, and

relevant oversight.

(2) Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and

Civil Liberties: constitutional amendments, constitutional

rights, federal civil rights laws, ethics in government,

other appropriate matters as referred by the Chairman, and

relevant oversight.

(3) Subcommittee on Commercial and Administrative Law:

bankruptcy and commercial law, bankruptcy judgeships,

administrative law, independent counsel, state taxation

affecting interstate commerce, interstate compacts, other

appropriate matters as referred by the Chairman, and relevant

oversight.

(4) Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland

Security: Federal Criminal Code, drug enforcement,

sentencing, parole and pardons, terrorism, internal and

homeland security, Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure,

prisons, criminal law enforcement, other appropriate matters

as referred by the Chairman, and relevant oversight.

(5) Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, Refugees,

Border Security, and International Law: immigration and

naturalization, border security, admission of refugees,

treaties, conventions and international agreements, claims

against the United States, federal charters of incorporation,

private immigration and claims bills, non-border enforcement,

other appropriate matters as referred by the Chairman, and

relevant oversight.

(c) The Chairman of the Committee and Ranking Minority

Member thereof shall be ex officio Members, but not voting

Members, of each Subcommittee to which such Chairman or

Ranking Minority Member has not been assigned by resolution

of the Committee. Ex officio Members shall not be counted as

present for purposes of constituting a quorum at any hearing

or meeting of such Subcommittee.

Rule VI. Powers and Duties of Subcommittees

Each Subcommittee is authorized to meet, hold hearings,

receive evidence, and report to the full Committee on all

matters referred to it or under its jurisdiction.

Subcommittee chairmen shall set dates for hearings and

meetings of their respective Subcommittees after consultation

with the Chairman and other Subcommittee chairmen with a view

toward avoiding simultaneous scheduling of full Committee and

Subcommittee meetings or hearings whenever possible.

Rule VII. Non-Legislative Reports

No report of the Committee or Subcommittee which does not

accompany a measure or matter for consideration by the House

shall be published unless all Members of the Committee or

Subcommittee issuing the report shall have been apprised of

such report and given the opportunity to give notice of

intention to file supplemental, additional, or dissenting

views as part of the report. In no case shall the time in

which to file such views be less than three calendar days

(excluding Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays when the

House is not in session).

Rule VIII. Committee Records

The records of the Committee at the National Archives and

Records Administration shall be made available for public use

according to the Rules of the House. The Chairman shall

notify the Ranking Minority Member of any decision to

withhold a record otherwise available, and the matter shall

be presented to the Committee for a determination on the

written request of any Member of the Committee.

Rule IX. Official Committee Website

The Chairman shall maintain an official website on behalf

of the Committee for the purpose of furthering the

Committee's legislative and oversight responsibilities,

including communicating information about the Committee's

activities to Committee Members and other Members of the

House. The Ranking Member is authorized to maintain a similar

official website on behalf of the Committee Minority for the

same purpose, including communicating information about the

activities of the Minority to Committee Members and other

Members of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 1591, the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health and Iraq Accountability Act.

This legislation will support our troops and veterans, hold the Bush Administration and Iraqi government accountable and bring our soldiers home by August 2008 or sooner. It will also provide emergency funding for critical programs that have suffered from years of neglect.

This supplemental appropriations bill provides emergency funding for critical programs that have long been underfunded by the Republicans. It includes $750 million to correct the funding shortfall in the State Children's Health Insurance program so that hundreds of thousands of children will not lose their health care. It provides $2.9 billion for Katrina relief and recovery. The bill also includes $2.6 billion for homeland security needs left unaddressed by Congressional Republicans, as well as $1.7 billion to remedy the unconscionable state of our military and veterans' health care systems. All of these issues are emergencies in their own right and rise to the level of inclusion in this emergency supplemental spending bill.

The U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Health and Iraq Accountability Act requires the Iraqi government to meet the security, political and economic benchmarks established by the President in his address of January 10th, including improvements in the performance of the Iraqi security forces, a greater commitment by the Iraqi government to national reconciliation, and reductions in the levels of sectarian violence in Iraq.

If the Iraqi government is unable to meet these benchmarks by July 7 of this year, redeployment of U.S. troops from Iraq would begin immediately and must be completed by January of 2008. If the benchmarks are met, the latest possible starting date for redeployment would be March 1 of next year, with complete withdrawal by August 31.

The bill ensures that our troops have the tools and resources they need to do the job they have been asked to do. It prohibits the deployment of troops who are not fully trained, equipped and protected according to current Department of Defense standards. The President can only deploy unprepared troops if he certifies, in writing, to Congress, that deploying those troops in the national interest. The bill also provides funding so the Veterans Administration can meet the obligations of a new generation of veterans, particularly by ensuring that they will have the medical care they need.

I have been an outspoken opponent of military action against Iraq since the day the administration started beating the war drums. My preference would have been to vote for a stronger bill that would bring our troops home even sooner than this one. I am disappointed that the bill includes waivers to allow the President to send less than fully- equipped troops into battle. I am also unhappy that the provision requiring the president to get Congressional approval for an attack on Iran was removed from the bill. I have additional concerns about the section of the bill that allows an unspecified number of U.S. troops to remain in Iraq after the August 2008 deadline to train Iraqis and fight terrorism.

However, I support this legislation in spite of these deficiencies because I believe it is an affirmative step towards our ultimate goal of ending the war. This bill is not everything that I would have liked, but it represents a critical turning point. No longer will this body uncritically hand over billions of dollars for the President to wage endless war. For the first time, Congress is considering binding legislation that sets a date certain for the end of the Iraq war. I will not help the Republicans defeat it.

The President and most Congressional Republicans ask that we continue to fund this war with ``no strings attached.'' But the United States cannot afford an open-ended commitment to a war without end. It is the responsibility of this Congress to devise a means to end the U.S. combat role in Iraq so that we can reclaim our position of leadership in the world and direct our resources back towards urgent needs here at home. I believe that this bill moves us towards these goals in an effective and responsible way.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on H.R. 1433, the District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2007.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

DC Vote,

Washington, DC, March 12, 2007.

25 Legal Scholars Support Constitutionality of DC Voting Rights

Dear Representative: DC residents pay federal income taxes,

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

but they do not have voting representation in the Congress.

This lack of representation is inconsistent with our

nation's core democratic principles. Justice Hugo Black put

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

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

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

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

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

Congress is currently considering granting voting rights to

Americans living in Washington, DC. Lawmakers have been faced

with questions about the constitutionality of extending the

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

As law professors and scholars, we would like to address

these questions and put to

rest any concerns about the constitutionality of extending

the right of representation to residents of the District.

While the language of the Constitution literally requires

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

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

literally. For example, the Uniformed and Overseas Citizens

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

vote in congressional elections in their last state of

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

taxes there, or have any intent to return.

To fully protect the interests of people living in the

capital, the Framers gave Congress extremely broad authority

over all matters relating to the federal district under

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

Courts have ruled that this clause gives Congress

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

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

diversity jurisdiction and interstate commerce, among other

things. Article III provides that courts may hear cases

``between citizens of different states'' (diversity

jurisdiction). The Supreme Court initially ruled that under

this language, DC residents could not sue residents of other

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

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

Co. (1949).

The Constitution also allows Congress to regulate commerce

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

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

Commerce Clause purposes was upheld in Stoughtenburg v.

Hennick (1889).

We believe, under the same analysis of the Constitution,

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

provide voting representation in Congress for DC residents.

Sincerely,

Sheryll D. Cashin, Georgetown University Law Center; Viet

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

Ogletree, Harvard Law School; Jamin Raskin, American

University Washington College of Law; Samuel R.

Bagenstos, Washington University Law School; Brian L.

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

Georgetown University Law Center; Richard Pierre

Claude, University of Maryland; Sherman Cohn,

Georgetown University Law Center; Peter Edelman,

Georgetown University Law Center; James Forman Jr.,

Georgetown University Law Center; David A. Gantz, The

University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law.

Michael Gottesman, Georgetown University Law Center;

Michael Greenberger, University of Maryland; Pat King,

Georgetown University Law Center; Charles R. Lawrence

III, Georgetown University Law Center; Paul Steven

Miller, University of Washington School of Law; James

Oldham, Georgetown University Law Center; Christopher

L. Peterson University of Florida, Levin College of

Law; Robert Pitofsky, Georgetown University Law Center;

David Schultz, University of Minnesota; Girardeau A.

Spann, Georgetown University Law Center; Ronald S.

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

Mason University; Wendy Williams, Georgetown University

Law Center.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I reserve the rest of my time.

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

Madam Speaker, I reserve my time.

Madam Speaker, we continue to reserve time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Watson) for the purpose of a unanimous-consent request.

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished former member of the Judiciary Committee, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).

Madam Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the Speaker of the House.

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

Madam Speaker, I will insert in the Record under yesterday's date, March 21, a CRS report handed to me by Eleanor Holmes Norton that validates the fact that the one man, one vote principle is not violated by the Utah creation of an at-large district.

Madam Speaker, we have had a lot of predictions from Members of the Congress who may be on the Supreme Court someday. They predicted unconstitutionality and constitutionality. Let's leave it up to the Court. But, remember, those challenging on the basis of unconstitutionality have the burden.

I close with this observation: The three recommendations we have had, a constitutional amendment; retrocession, giving D.C. back to Maryland; or statehood, are not going to work.

I urge support for this measure before us today.

CRS Report for Congress: Congressional Redistricting: The

Constitutionality of Creating an At-Large District

(L. Paige Whitaker, Legislative Attorney)

Summary

Among other provisions, H.R. 1433 (110th Cong.), the

District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2007, would

expand the U.S.

House of Representatives by two Members to a total of 437

Members. The first of these two new seats would be allocated

to create a voting Member representing the District of

Columbia, and the second seat would be assigned in accordance

with 2000 census data and existing federal law, resulting in

the addition of a fourth congressional seat in the state of

Utah, which would be a temporary at-large district. This

report is limited to discussing only the constitutionality of

the creation of an at-large congressional district. While it

is not without doubt, based on the authority granted to

Congress under the Constitution to regulate congressional

elections and relevant Supreme Court precedent, it appears

that federal law establishing a temporary at-large

congressional district would likely be upheld as

constitutional.

H.R. 1433 (110th Cong.), the District of Columbia House Voting Rights

Act of 2007

Among other provisions, H.R. 1433 (110th Cong.), the

District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 2007, would

expand the U.S. House of Representatives by two Members to a

total of 437 Members. It specifies that the first of these

two new seats would be allocated to create a voting Member

representing the District of Columbia, and that the second

seat would be assigned in accordance with 2000 census data

and existing federal law, which would currently result in the

addition of a fourth congressional seat in the state of Utah.

This report is limited to considering only the issue of

the constitutionality of the creation of an at-large

congressional district.

H.R. 1433 (110th Cong.) was introduced on March 9, 2007,

and supersedes H.R. 328, which was introduced earlier in the

110th Congress. On March 13, the House Government Oversight

and Reform Committee reported H.R. 1433, by a vote of 24-5,

and on March 15, the House Judiciary Committee reported the

bill by a vote of 21-13.

Brief Constitutional Analysis

The U.S. Constitution provides the states with primary

authority over congressional elections, but grants Congress

the final authority over most aspects of such elections. This

congressional power is at its most broad in the case of House

elections, which have historically been decided by a system

of popular voting. Article I, Sec. 4, cl. 1 provides that:

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for

Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each

State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any

time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the

Places of chusing Senators.

The Supreme Court and lower courts have interpreted this

language to mean that Congress has extensive power to

regulate most elements of congressional elections, including

a broad authority to protect the integrity of those

elections.

The Constitution does not specify how Members of the House

are to be elected once they are apportioned to a state.

Originally, most states having more than one Representative

divided their territory into geographic districts, permitting

only one Member of Congress to be elected from each district.

Other states, however, allowed House candidates to run at-

large or from multi-member districts or from some combination

of the two. In those states employing single-member

districts, however, the problem of gerrymandering, the

practice of drawing district lines in order to maximize

political party advantage, quickly arose.

Accordingly, Congress began establishing standards for

House districts. Congress first passed federal redistricting

standards in 1842, when it added a requirement to the

apportionment act of that year that Representatives ``should

be elected by districts composed of contiguous territory

equal in number to the number of Representatives to which

each said state shall be entitled, no one district electing

more than one Representative.'' (5 Stat. 491.) The

Apportionment Act of 1872 added another requirement to those

first set out in 1842, stating that districts should contain

``as nearly as practicable an equal number of inhabitants.''

(17 Stat. 492.) A further requirement of ``compact

territory'' was added when the Apportionment Act of 1901 was

adopted stating that districts must be made up of

``contiguous and compact territory and containing as nearly

as practicable an equal number of inhabitants.'' (26 Stat.

736.) After 1929, there were no congressionally imposed

standards governing congressional redistricting; in 1941,

however, Congress enacted a law providing for various

redistricting contingencies if states failed to redistrict

after a census--including at-large representation. (55

Stat 761.) In 1967, Congress reimposed the requirement

that Representatives must run from single-member

districts, rather than running at-large. (81 Stat. 581.)

Both the 1941 and 1967 laws are still in effect, codified

at 2 U.S.C.Sec. Sec. 2a and 2c. In Branch v. Smith, the

Supreme Court considered the operation and inherent tension

between these two provisions. It does not appear, however,

that the question of congressional authority was in serious

dispute in this litigation. Rather, the Court noted in

passing that the current statutory scheme governing

apportionment of the House of Representatives was enacted in

1929 pursuant to congressional authority under the ``Times,

Places and Manner'' provision of the Constitution.

Consequently, it seems likely that Congress has broad

authority, within specified constitutional parameters, to

establish how Members' districts will be established,

including the creation of at-large districts.

It might be suggested that creating an at-large

congressional district in a state could violate the ``one

person, one vote'' standard established by the Supreme Court

in Wesberry v. Sanders. In Wesberry, the Supreme Court first

applied the one person, one vote standard in the context of

evaluating the constitutionality of a Georgia congressional

redistricting statute that created a district with two to

three times as many residents as the state's other nine

districts. In striking down the statute, the Court held that

Article I, section 2, clause 1, providing that

Representatives be chosen ``by the People of the several

States'' and be ``apportioned among the several States . . .

according to their respective Numbers,'' requires that ``as

nearly as is practicable, one man's vote in a congressional

is to be worth as much as another's.''

While it is not beyond dispute, it does not appear that the

creation of an at-large district under the circumstances

outlined in H.R. 1433 would be interpreted to create a

conflict with the ``one person, one vote'' standard. Under

H.R. 1433, each Utah voter would have the opportunity to vote

both for a candidate to represent his or her congressional

district as well as for a candidate to represent the state

at-large. Each person's vote for an at-large candidate

would be of equal worth. Further, each person's vote for

an at-large candidate would not affect the value of his or

her vote for a candidate representing a congressional

district. Accordingly, all Utah residents' votes would

have equal value, thereby arguably comporting with the one

person, one vote principle.

Based on the authority granted to Congress under the

Constitution to regulate congressional elections and relevant

Supreme Court precedent, it appears that a federal law

establishing a temporary at-large congressional district

would likely be upheld as constitutional.

Madam Speaker, I object.

Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to this motion to recommit.

This is the most startling double hypocrisy I have ever heard of on a bill of this magnitude. Very clever, whoever dreamed this up. The motion to recommit would deny everyone in this House the right to vote on whether citizens would gain the right to vote, and at the same time arm them with military-type weaponry that is being used in Iraq right now to destroy aircraft and bring down helicopters.

We would also repeal the District's strong ban on handgun ammunition that can pierce body armor worn by police officers and other law enforcement officials at a time when security has become a top priority in the District, making military-style assault weapons readily available.

Now, the most important person I have ever met in my life, with due respect to all the great people I have had the honor of working with as a Member of Congress, is Martin Luther King, Jr. If he is looking down on us now to see if we are working for justice and peace in our country, in our Capital and throughout the world, I am sure he would be as dismayed as I am by putting a gun control vote up for a motion to recommit.

Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Davis.

I thank the gentleman.

I now turn to the gentlewoman from the District of Columbia, Eleanor Holmes Norton, and recognize her at this time.

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

Regular order, Madam Speaker.

Regular order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to introduce the bipartisan Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007, along with Representatives Kirk, Frank, Shays, Baldwin, Ros-Lehtinen, Nadler and Bono. As of today there are more than 100 original cosponsors. This legislation will provide assistance to state and local law enforcement agencies and amend federal law to facilitate the investigation and prosecution of violent, bias-motivated crimes. Last Congress, this legislation passed with bipartisan support as H. Amdt 544 to the Child Safety Act (H.R.

3132) by a vote of 223-199. Bipartisan majorities also voted in favor of hate crime legislation in the 108th and 106th Congresses.

The Hate Crimes Prevention Act has attracted the support of over 210 civil rights, education, religious, and civic organizations. Importantly, virtually every major law enforcement organization in the country has endorsed the bill--including the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the National District Attorneys Association, the National Sheriffs Association, the Police Executive Research Forum, and 31 state Attorneys General.

Bias crimes are disturbingly prevalent and pose a significant threat to the full participation of all Americans in our democratic society. The FBI has the best national data on reported hate crime, though the program is voluntary. Since 1991, the FBI has documented over 113,000 hate crimes. For the year 2005, the most current data available, the FBI compiled reports from law enforcement agencies across the country identifying 7,163 bias-motivated criminal incidents that were directed against an individual because of their personal characteristics. Law enforcement agencies identified 8,795 victims arising from 8,373 separate criminal offenses. As in the past, racially-motivated bias accounted for more than half (54.7 percent) of all incidents. Religious bias accounted for 1,227 incidents (17.1 percent) and sexual orientation bias accounted for 1,017 incidents--(14.2 percent), followed by ethnicity/national origin bias with 944 incidents--(13.7 percent). While these numbers are disturbing, it is important to note that, for a variety of reasons, hate crimes are seriously under- reported.

Despite the deep impact of hate violence on communities, current law limits federal jurisdiction over hate crimes to incidents directed against individuals on the basis of race, religion, color or national origin--but only when the victim is targeted because he/she is engaged in a federally protected activities, such as voting. Further, the statutes do not permit federal involvement in a range of cases where crimes are motivated by bias against the victim's perceived sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or disability. The federal government must have authority to be involved in investigating and prosecuting these crimes when state authorities cannot or will not do so.

This legislation, which is identical to the version approved in the 109th Congress, will strengthen existing federal law in the same way that the Church Arson Prevention Act of 1996 helped federal prosecutors combat church arson: by addressing the unduly rigid jurisdictional requirements under federal law. The bill only applies to bias-motivated violent crimes and does not impinge public speech or writing in any way. In fact, the measure includes an explicit First Amendment free speech protection for the accused modeled on the existing Washington state hate crimes statute.

State and local authorities currently prosecute the overwhelming majority of hate crimes and will continue to do so under this legislation. The federal government will continue to defer to state and local authorities in the vast majority of cases; the Attorney General or another high ranking Justice Department official must approve any prosecutions undertaken pursuant to this law, ensuring federal restraint. However, in appropriate circumstances, the federal government will be able to provide support for local prosecutions--an intergovernmental grant program created by this legislation will make Justice Department technical, forensic or prosecutorial assistance available. The legislation also authorizes the Attorney General to make grants to state and local law enforcement agencies that have incurred extraordinary expenses associated with the investigation and prosecution of hate crimes.

The Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007 is a constructive and measured response to a problem that continues to plague our nation. Hate crime statistics do not speak for themselves. Behind each of the statistics is an individual or community targeted for violence for no other reason than race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, or disability. Law enforcement authorities and civic leaders have learned that a failure to address the problem of bias crime can cause a seemingly isolated incident to fester into widespread tension that can damage the social fabric of the wider community. This problem cuts across party lines, and I am glad to be joined by so many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle in proposing this legislation today. These are crimes that shock and shame our national conscience and should be subject to comprehensive federal law enforcement assistance and prosecution.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of House Resolution 1227, the Gulf Coast Hurricane Housing Recovery Act of 2007. This resolution will improve flexibility for previously appropriated funds for hurricane recovery efforts on the Gulf Coast. In addition, the bill would free up for use $1.175 billion in funds previously made available to the State of Louisiana under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, but not being utilized by

FEMA. The legislation also includes a number of provisions designed to preserve the supply of affordable rental housing and would authorize 4,500 new housing vouchers for the purpose of project-based assistance for supportive housing units for seniors, disabled persons, and the homeless. In addition, this bill would require HUD to provide a replacement voucher for every public housing and assisted housing unit that is not brought back on line. The House also adopted the Green Amendment which extends FEMA housing assistance until December 31, 2007 and then transfers eligible households to HUD's tenant-based rental assistance program. This amendment is of vital importance, because it addresses the looming September deadline and gives more than 12,000 families the assurance that they will not be displaced for a second time as they await the rebuilding of their housing.

In effect, this bill provides an opportunity for our government to correct some of the injustices to the residents of the Gulf Coast for the: slow and sometimes mismanaged response of the Bush Administration. This bill helps those displaced residents begin to regain stability in their lives.

A test of our government's commitment to these citizens occurred when the first flood waters and storm surges arrived. Unfortunately as the waters slowly receded, the government also moved slowly. It is in this aftermath, over 18 months later, that we finally begin to address the grave miscarriage of justice that occurred.

The current status has former residents caught in a perpetual, vicious circle in that the storm damaged areas do not have enough schools, hospitals and services to support their return home. However, these resources are not available because there are not enough people in their neighborhoods to support having hospitals, schools and services. The lack of housing fuels this crisis and prevents many from returning to the area.

Currently, fewer than 200,000 of the 454,000 pre-Katrina displaced residents have returned home. The survivors of Hurricane Katrina are not asking for a hand out, these survivors were not displaced through any fault of their own and we must immediately use our resources to help them return home. We must treat the survivors of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in the Gulf Coast region the same as we have treated survivors of other natural disasters.

Though we have much work ahead to make the residents of the Gulf Coast whole, this is a very important first step.

Madam Speaker, on November 7, 2006, the American people sent a clear message to Congress and the President: we must end the war in Iraq. In response, the administration announced it would escalate the conflict. Today we mark the fourth anniversary of President Bush's war of choice, and later this week, the House of Representatives will have to make a choice of its own: either endorse the President's open- ended commitment to the Iraq war or demand accountability and set a timeline for the phased redeployment of our troops. I am hopeful that Congress will pass a supplemental appropriations bill that will chart a new direction toward de-escalation, with a definitive date for disengagement.

The occasion of this anniversary is an appropriate time to examine the impact of these last four years of war. As we begin the fifth year of the war, the price we have paid is high--with more than 3,000 U.S. troops dead, more than 20,000 U.S. troops wounded, and more than $400 billion of taxpayer dollars appropriated. The Iraq war is already longer than U.S. participation in World War II, World War I, the Korean War, or the Civil War.

What do we have to show for these sacrifices? Contrary to the rosy scenario depicted by the administration, this war has not made us safer; on the contrary, it has made us more vulnerable than ever. A sizeable majority of foreign policy and military experts agree that the world is a more dangerous place for Americans now than it was before we invaded Iraq. The war has become the number one recruiting tool of terrorists, and our continuing occupation of Iraq has provided them with the best training camp they could ever hope to have--a place where they can practice and refine their methods while taking American lives. The war increasingly strains our military--now creating a genuine crisis in U.S. troop readiness and our ability to respond to new threats. Should disaster strike here at home or elsewhere in the world, we will be left virtually defenseless while our troops and equipment are bogged down in a bloody quagmire that threatens to drag on for many more years.

House Democrats are bringing forward a plan that provides for a change in course on Iraq. Our plan will protect our troops on the battlefield and at home, require accountability from the Bush Administration and the Iraqi government, and set a responsible timeline for

a phased redeployment of U.S. troops--with a date certain, by August 2008 at the latest, for U.S. combat troops to be redeployed from Iraq. While I would have preferred a plan that brought the troops home even sooner, I believe that this compromise proposal is the best approach Congress can take at this time.

Adoption of the Democrats' plan would begin to answer the pleas of the American people--to turn away from the President's open-ended commitment to U.S. participation in this Iraqi civil war and instead provide a responsible, phased plan for requiring the Iraqis to take responsibility for their own future. Redeploying our armed forces does not mean ``cutting and running.'' On the contrary, we suggest continued and extensive involvement in the region through renewed diplomacy and reconstruction that is free from fraud and abuse. This sensible path is the only one that can truly lead us to victory.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Congressmen Al Green and Frank Pallone for arranging this Special Order hour. Today I rise to register my concern about the conditions at Walter Reed Army Medical Center and to show my support and dedication to increasing the quality of health care services, for our veterans as well as our men and women in uniform.

The Nation has been horrified by the Washington Post's recent reports of the appalling conditions at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. Thanks to the diligent investigative reporting of Dana Priest and Anne Hull, we now know that our soldiers recovering in outpatient units are being forced to confront cockroaches, mice droppings and toxic black mold as they heal. Even worse, many become lost in an uncaring military bureaucracy that subjects them to long waits just to get their most basic needs addressed.

The administration is now scrambling to control the damage from this scathing expose of its neglect of our wounded warriors. Almost as distressing as the conditions at Walter Reed is the fact that it took a report from the Washington Post to get the administration to address this unacceptable situation. We now know that our wounded warriors have been complaining about these problems for years, not just at Walter Reed but at military hospitals and outpatient facilities across the country. Their pleas, however, seem to have fallen on deaf ears. We owe a debt of gratitude to the reporters and editors at the Washington Post for uncovering this abominable situation and forcing this administration to act.

Time and again, when those of us who oppose America's involvement in Iraq stand up and question why our brave men and women in uniform must fight and die in a war of choice, we are accused of ``not supporting the troops.'' But, Madam Speaker, supporting the troops is about more than lip service. The hypocrisy and irony of the situation at Walter Reed is scandalous and immoral. The same administration that hides behind the troops to avoid changing its policy in Iraq is guilty of abandoning the very men and women who must make the sacrifices required to carry out this failed policy.

The sheer audacity of the administration's rhetoric in comparison with its actions is staggering. The administration trumpets its support for the troops but then, in the next moment, sends them into battle without the proper training and equipment. The administration says it supports the troops, but then falls short in providing them with a safe environment to heal the wounds they received while fighting so valiantly and selflessly for our country.

Thousands of our brave men and women serving the administration's failed policy in Iraq have paid a heavy price. Since March of 2003, 23,677 service members have been wounded in Iraq. Our military and VA health care systems are ih crisis, apparently unprepared for the influx of casualties that war unavoidably creates. These health systems have been overwhelmed by troops returning from battle seeking health care and, in many instances, are unable to provide these men and women with the services they so desperately need. It is estimated that in the coming years over 700,000 veterans from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will enter the military and veterans health care system. Yet, because of Republican budget cuts, many of our brave soldiers are returning home with mental health ailments to discover that they will receive a third fewer psychiatric visits than they would have just 10 years ago.

The number of soldiers navigating the bureaucracy of Walter Reed since 2001 has nearly doubled, yet the administration continues to move forward with the planned closing of the hospital. The president's budget continues to shortchange veterans' health care, providing an increase in fiscal year 2008 but then cutting the budget in fiscal years 2009 and 2010 to below the 2008 level and freezing the funding level thereafter. The administration's lack of planning for the war seems to include a total disregard for the service members who are returning home bearing the scars of the conflict.

Mr. Speaker, our soldiers have done their duty. Now we must truly support them, not by blindly continuing a failed policy, but by getting them out of harm's way. We will continue to insist that our service members receive the health care they deserve. We will continue to hold oversight hearings about the conditions faced by our wounded service members and veterans at Walter Reed as well as at other military and veterans health facilities across the country. But the best way to support these brave young men and women is to begin a fully-funded withdrawal. Let's really support our troops by giving them the equipment and supplies they need to get out of Iraq safely in the next 6 months.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to join with Representative Rahm Emanuel in jointly introducing the Deceptive Practices and Voter Intimidation Prevention Act. America's election system is broken and it is up to this Congress to fix it. Consecutive elections have shown us that eligible voters are denied their right to cast a ballot. Disturbingly, misinformation campaigns are often responsible for keeping these voters away from the polls.

I believe this legislation is a step towards ending deceptive practices and bringing integrity back to our elections. It is a direct response to the fraudulent tactics used to undermine our elections. This bill explicitly prohibits deceptive practices and provides voters with greater federal protections.

Numerous accounts indicate deceptive practices were employed throughout the country in our last midterm and presidential elections. Voters were told to vote on the wrong day. They were told they could not vote with outstanding parking tickets. Ultimately, they were misled, deceived, and disenfranchised. This must stop.

In 2006, our most vulnerable voters--legal immigrants and minorities--were prevented from voting. Latino voters in Orange County, California were threatened with incarceration if they voted. African American voters in Prince Georges County, Maryland were given fliers with false endorsements. These tactics are despicable and those responsible for them must be held accountable.

Under our legislation, those that engage in deceptive practices will be held accountable. Additionally, the federal government will be held responsible for protecting and advancing the right to vote.

Deceptive electioneering practices are clearly defined and prohibited under this bill. The Attorney General and the Department of Justice are required to combat and counteract deceptive practices. These measures will ensure that voters can cast a ballot free from intimidation, harassment, and deceit.

Deceptive practices do more than impede the right to vote. They threaten to erode the very core of our democracy. By eliminating barriers to the polls, we can help to restore what has been missing from our elections--fairness, honesty, and integrity.