Floor Statements

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Katherine Carney upon receiving the Commonwealth Academy's Recognition for Educators, CARE, Award.

The CARE award honors outstanding educators from across the United States for their unrelenting work to enhance the lives of their students. Kathe, a teacher at Neabsco Elementary School, is honored for her work in promoting diverse learners in the spirit of the ''No Child Left Behind Act.''

Although she began her career teaching English literature, Mrs. Carney's passion and gift lay with teaching the neediest students. In 1994, at PACE West, a self-contained special education school, she taught students with serious emotional and behavioral needs. In addition to the 8-13 subjects she taught a day, she took on roles as a mentor, advisory committee member, and the school's administrator of various special education testing regimens. Devoted to reading, Mrs. Carney noted a void of books at her school, and was shocked to find no library at PACE West. She took it upon herself to initiate, organize, and develop the PACE West library, which housed 2,000 volumes upon her departure.

After 7 years at PACE, Mrs. Carney joined the staff at Swans Creek Elementary School. She taught a self-contained class for students in the 2nd-5th grade with learning disabilities, speech, language and vision impairments, and other health challenges. Again, Mrs. Carney mentored her fellow teachers and established the school's Learning Disabilities Program.

In 2003, Mrs. Carney joined the faculty at Neabsco Elementary School, teaching 4th and 5th graders who are emotionally disturbed. The administration at Neabsco quickly realized her abilities and tasked her to be the case manager of the Instructional Consultant Team and a member of the Child Study Team. Mrs. Carney has received numerous commendations at Neabsco, including being named 2007 Neabsco Teacher of the Year and was nominated to be 2007 Dale City Teacher of the Year.

Over her distinguished career, Mrs. Carney has demonstrated great resolve, patience, and a unique ability to make a positive difference in the lives of her students. Working with students with these needs is trying; however, every day is a new opportunity for Mrs. Carney and her students. No incident or past history is ever carried back into the classroom; this includes the time where an inadvertent swing of a baseball bat left her in a full leg cast for months.

It is dark when Mrs. Carney arrives at school and dark when she leaves. Her devotion to her students is immeasurable. Whether it is tutoring for the science fair on a Saturday, meeting with a concerned parent late at night, or counseling former students on life altering decisions, Mrs. Carney always makes herself available to those in need. Through her tender approach and no-nonsense outlook, Mrs. Carney has made a difference in the lives of countless youths in Prince William County.

Madam Speaker, in closing, I would like to commend and congratulate Mrs. Carney for being recognized as one of the 2007 CARE awardees. I call upon my colleagues to join me in applauding Kathe on all her accomplishments and in wishing her continued success in the years to come.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the conference report to accompany H.R. 1591.

As I have said on previous occasions, Congress has every right to limit the use of appropriated funds. In this instance, I disagree with the manner in which my Democratic colleagues have chosen to do so.

The Iraqi government needs to understand our patience is not unlimited. Indeed, establishing benchmarks could well have a useful purpose in the effort to have the Iraqis take more decisive steps towards autonomy. Making these benchmarks public and tying them to a specific date by which we must begin to withdraw our troops, however, is a mistake. It sends the wrong message to our troops, and it gives the enemy invaluable information.

Along with many of my colleagues, I want our troops to leave Iraq as quickly as possible. Setting a public date by which this must happen, however, will ultimately create more problems than it solves.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Kyle R. Wilson and to recognize his service to our community.

I come to the floor to speak of the bravery exhibited by Technician Wilson who served on the Prince William County Department of Fire and Rescue since January of 2006. Technician Wilson and his unit from Occoquan-Woodbridge-Lorton (OWL) Station 12 in Woodbridge responded to a three alarm house fire early on the morning on April 16th, 2007. Tragically, he was killed in the line of duty while heroically attempting to save the lives of others.

Kyle was a longtime resident of Prince William County and attended C.D. Hylton High School in Woodbridge, VA where he was a star baseball player for the Bulldogs. The bravery Kyle demonstrated Monday was typical of his personality. His former baseball coach described him to have all the qualities of a leader, specifically that he was fearless and willing to make sacrifices for others. Due to this strong character and devotion to community, it was no surprise to his coach that Kyle found his calling as a firefighter.

Upon graduation from Hylton, Kyle went on to study athletic training and earned his degree from George Mason University in 2005. He joined the fire department in January 2006, graduating from the recruit academy that June. Assistant Prince William County Fire Chief Kevin McGee described Kyle as an ``outstanding young man, who was one of the best of our best.'' Kyle is survived by his father Bob, mother Sue, brother Chris, sister Kelli, and his girlfriend Kristi Silor.

In my experiences with the department, I have seen its unwavering dedication to the Prince William County community. Kyle was an example of Prince William's finest. Every day firefighters selflessly put their lives on the line to save others, and Kyle made the ultimate sacrifice. Let us never forget the sacrifice he made.

Madam Speaker, in honoring Kyle I would like to take this opportunity to thank all the men and women that put their lives on the line and bravely serve on the Prince William County Department of Fire and Rescue. I extend my heartfelt condolences to Kyle's family, friends, and to his brothers and sisters on the department.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask if the gentleman from Michigan could yield me 2 minutes as well.

Taxation Without Representation, the phrase that sparked this Nation's revolution of independence, still fuels the aspirations of District residents, especially this week when they paid taxes to a Federal Government in which they are not fully represented.

So this House once again considers a bill to correct this historical anomaly that leaves those living closest to the seat of our democracy without the same rights as their fellow citizens living everywhere else in our vast Nation. We persist because the cause is right and patience a vice against long-festering injustice.

Today, there is no need to repeat everything said 3 weeks ago. The history, the case law, the constitutional analysis have all been recited. We have heard from the opponents of this legislation who rely on a single argument championed by one very liberal constitutional lawyer.

We counter with the studied opinions of two former Federal judges, including Judge Kenneth Starr, and 25 legal scholars from the best law schools in the country, including Viet Dinh, who the Bush administration relied on to write the PATRIOT Act. Anyone who would have been moved by those arguments has already been persuaded.

Instead, I want to focus on the moral imperative to act, even in the face of difficulty or doubt. A great man of letters once said: ``Nothing will ever be attempted if all possible objections must first be overcome.'' There will always be an excuse not to try. Refute one opposing argument, another sprouts like a weed. In this case, the scales of justice cannot be moved with weightless legal theories. The balance is tipped decidedly by the solid facts

and heavy effects of disenfranchisement endured every day by those who live in the Nation's Capital.

The people of the District of Columbia have served in every war this country has fought. Think about that for a second. These Americans bravely risked their lives, not to defend the freedoms they had, but to protect the promise of freedoms they hoped to have restored. They dutifully pay many millions of dollars in Federal taxes year in and year out, with absolutely no say in how that money may be spent.

But these are the obvious sacrifices of living in the Federal City. The small daily contributions of this city's citizens should not be overlooked. District residents truly serve this Nation every day performing thousands of Federal jobs. But when this House votes on the shape, the size and the cost of that government, they are invisible, unseen and unheard in debates that affect their lives more directly than most.

As a Republican, I am not willing to bear the shame of failing to try to resolve this matter after 200 years. According to our party's own Web site, ``The Republican Party was organized as an answer to the divided politics, political turmoil, argument and internal divisions, particularly over slavery, which plagued many political parties in 1854.'' Our first Presidential candidate, John C. Fremont, ran under a slogan: ``Free soil, free labor, free speech, free men, Fremont.''

We exist as a party to increase representation and liberty in this country and in this world. This legislation is in the highest traditions of this party that fought for free speech, fought to abolish slavery, and fought to give women the right to vote.

So I ask my Republican colleagues to see through the fog of armchair constitutional analysis and do the right thing. There is still time to cast a Republican vote, a vote to preserve our party's heritage and to vote to expand liberty.

Opponents of this legislation will apologize that the Constitution won't allow them to do the good they wish they could do. I am sorry, but I can't accept that. At the end of the day, this is not an argument about what Congress can do. It is about what Congress is willing to do.

Those of us who are supporting this bill are not nervous about its constitutionality. We are convinced that this Congress already has the authority we need to expand freedom and liberty in this Nation. Might we be wrong? Possibly. The Supreme Court has never decided a case like this. But even if we are proven wrong, there is nobility in attempting to do the right thing. There is honor in acting, not just talking, to end injustice.

To those still shackled by doubt, I offer the words of Reverend King: ``Take the first step in faith. You don't have to see the whole staircase. Just take the first step.'' Take that step with me and pass this bill.

I thank my colleague for yielding.

I am going to support the bill at hand because it is the only way we can implement what we just did.

I want to thank my friends on the other side. I know this is a complex rule. It is unfortunate we had to go through the machinations we did to get where we are, but this was a historic vote today as we propel legislation along the great ark of our Nation's history as the world's most vibrant experiment in representative democracy.

Two hundred six years ago this month, Thomas Jefferson became the first President to take his oath in what was called the Federal City here in Washington. But through the confluence of circumstances and accident, the great compromise that birthed our Constitution and put the Nation's Capital here also produced a grotesque injustice we have so far been unable to right. Today is a time for another great compromise.

The capital of the free world doesn't provide full voting representation for residents. In fact, that has been true for too long, but today we have started the process of correcting an unhappy legacy left by the first Congresses.

I have discovered over the last 4 years that there are substantial myths surrounding the founding of Washington, DC, so I want to take a few minutes today to lay out the facts of how the city became what it is.

The idea for a Federal district arose out of an incident that took place in 1783 while the Continental Congress was in session in Philadelphia. When a crowd of Revolutionary War soldiers who had not been paid gathered to protest outside the building, the Continental Congress requested help from the Pennsylvania militia. The State refused, and the Congress was forced to adjourn and reconvene in New Jersey.

After that incident, the Framers concluded there was a need for a Federal district under solely Federal control for the protection of the Congress and for the territorial integrity of the capital. So the Framers gave Congress broad authority to create such a Federal district and broad authority to govern such a place. That is the limit of what the Framers say about a Federal district in the Constitution, that there should be one, and that it should be under congressional authority.

After ratification of the Constitution, one of the first issues to face the new Congress was where to place the Federal District. Some wanted it in New York. Others wanted it in Philadelphia. And others wanted it near George Washington's home on the Potomac.

These sectional factions fought a fierce political battle to decide the matter because they believed they were founding a great city, a new Rome. They expected this new city to have all the benefits of the great capitals of Europe. They never once talked about denying that city's inhabitants the right to vote.

Finally, Jefferson brokered a deal that allowed the city to be placed on the banks of the Potomac in exchange for Congress paying the Revolutionary War debt. New York got the debt paid, Philadelphia got the capital for 10 years. Then, as now, those political decisions were shaped by the issues of the day.

In 1790, Congress passed the Residence Act in which the right to vote was given to those residing in the new District. But while the capital was being established, those living here were permitted to continue to vote where they had before, in their States, on the Maryland side in Maryland, on the Virginia side of the District in Virginia.

The seat of government officially moved in 1800. In his final address to the Sixth Congress, less than a week after it took up residence in the new Federal District, President John Adams reminded Members, ``It is with you, gentlemen, to consider whether local powers over the District of Columbia vested by the Constitution in Congress shall be immediately exercised.'' That one statement explains the nature of the debate to follow.

Once again, the issues of the day shaped the actions of Congress. The political parties couldn't come to an agreement. Imagine that. The Federalists wanted to ensure a strong central control over the city. Anti-Federalist Republicans wanted to limit authority and distrusted all things urban.

With Jefferson and his Republicans preparing to take control of the Presidency and Congress, a pervasive atmosphere of crisis compelled the Federalists into action. If a bill was not passed before Jefferson took over, it would never pass.

Eventually, the Congress passed a stripped-down version of a bill authored by Virginia Congressman ``Light Horse Harry'' Lee. It simply stated that the laws of Virginia and Maryland then in effect, having been superseded in the District, would still apply.

We may never know why this version was passed because no records survived, but there is absolutely no evidence the Founding Fathers, who had just put their lives on the line to forge a representative government, then decided the only way to secure that government was to deny representation to some of their fellow citizens.

One historian aptly described the process as a ``rushed and improvised accommodation to political reality, necessitated by the desperate logic of lame-duck political maneuvering.'' But the inelegant compromise ultimately adopted left a decidedly undemocratic accident in its wake. District residents had no votes in Congress.

This wasn't, and is not, merely a quirk of history that affects very few people. The problem affects the very

reputation of our entire Nation. Foreign visitors I have met comment with puzzlement on the lack of voting representation in the Nation's Capital. I heard it from the mayor of Hong Kong when we were discussing his relationship with China.

Over the next few weeks and as this moves to the other body, we have to agree on this principle. So we have taken important action today.

Our very practical Founding Fathers left us a tool in the Constitution to deal with future problems. The District Clause in the Constitution, article I, section 8, clause 17, is there for a reason. Congress reaches its zenith of power in dealing with issues relating to the District.

Over the years, Congress has exercised its power to treat the District as a State when necessary, to ensure that the citizens of the city have substantially the same rights as all other Americans. Surely Members should resolve any difference of opinion they may have in favor of our authority to use that plenary power to provide residents with full voting representation.

Scholars spanning its political and legal spectrum have concluded, as I do, that Congress has authority through this legislation to provide voting representation in Congress for local residents. What was done by statute in 1790, and then undone by statute in 1800, can be redone by statute today.

This is often called the ``People's House,'' and rightly so. Article I, section 2, sets forth that ``The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second year by the People of the several States.''

That same language, ``People of the several States,'' among the several States, is why the District of Columbia pays Federal taxes, even though it applies to people of the several States.

The sixth amendment's right to trial by jury, even though it says that it will be an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall be committed, has been applied to the District.

Prohibiting district laws which interfere with interstate commerce among the several States, Congress has applied that to the District of Columbia and the courts have upheld it.

Treat the District as a State for purposes of full faith and credit. That talks about States and the Constitution. But under the District clause, we have included the District of Columbia.

Grant people who live in the District the ability to sue people. Diversity of jurisdiction again applies to States, between citizens of different States under the Constitution, but under the District clause we have applied that by statute.

This body has taken an historic step today. I want to thank my colleagues who worked toward this, including my good friend from Pennsylvania, Mr. English, who supported this. But to continue this, we need to support the issue at hand, the bill that is currently on the floor under the PAYGO legislation.

It is kind of a jurisdictional morass, but I urge my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great sadness that I address this Chamber today. As the parent of four children in college, I share the horror and the rage, the grief and the sorrow of the larger Virginia community.

I rise today to urge my colleagues to support this resolution expressing our sorrow and offering condolences over the tragic events that took place Monday at Virginia Tech. Our hearts, our prayers and our thoughts go out to the families of those who lost lives, the injured and their families, and all those affected by this terrible tragedy, including the family of the troubled young man who perpetrated this crime.

The coming together of communities, the reaching over the fences to lend a hand of support at this hour of need has been touching. From the Washington Nationals wearing Virginia Tech caps last night, to the community groups that gathered spontaneously across the Commonwealth to share their sorrow, the picture of the Commonwealth today is one we can, as usual, take great pride in. Yesterday I traveled with my colleagues to Blacksburg for the convocation, and last evening over 500 Korean Americans assembled at the Fairfax County Government Center to express their outrage, to offer their prayers, to start the healing process that follows such tragic events.

Mr. Speaker, we Virginians are known for looking out for each other and this has been no different. The outpouring of love, sympathy and caring for each other has been astonishing. The pictures of students comforting each other, of students and teachers helping each other search for answers in these dark hours has been particularly moving. All of us around the Commonwealth must come together to find the strength to move forward. We're family. We've been deeply wounded. That's what families do when they're hurt. They look to each other for strength, for inspiration and for meaning. Mr. Speaker, we hurt for the victims and we honor their lives. That's what families do. We close ranks and lend each other support in our darkest hours. Benjamin Franklin said more than 200 years ago that those things that hurt instruct. Let us learn from this. Let us hurt. It's good for the soul. It helps us to heal. It is, sadly, the only way to move forward.

Again, I urge my colleagues to support the resolution.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the officers and members of American Legion Post 364, American Legion Auxiliary Unit 364, and all national members of the American Legion and American Legion Auxiliary.

The American Legion is a community-service organization, made up of patriotic, mutual-help, war-time veterans. The American Legion Auxiliary is a women's patriotic service organization, created to assist the American Legion. Through community service programs, both of these fine institutions have made a great impact on our community and to the veterans living in our region.

This year, Mr. Jerry Howard will serve as the American Legion Department of Virginia commander. A 22 year veteran of the U.S. Air Force, Jerry has been a member of the American Legion for 23 years. He has previously served as Post 364 commander, 16th District commander and Department of Virginia vice commander.

Ms. Marcia Wheatley will serve as the American Legion Auxiliary Department of Virginia president. A 12 year member of the American Legion Auxiliary, Marcia has served as Unit 364 president and 16th District president.

Together, Jerry and Marcia will represent Virginia at state and national veteran events where they will promote programs that benefit veterans, troops, and children. Also, they will travel here, to Washington DC, to meet with members of Congress to discuss legislation needed to provide for the health and well being of troops and veterans.

Other recent officer selections include Virginia Department Historian Barbara Barnes, Auxiliary National Security Chairman Dianne Cabot, Post 364 Commander William Moriarity and Unit 364 President Raye Ferrington. These individuals bring a stellar record of accomplishment to these institutions, and the American Legion and American Legion Auxiliary will benefit greatly from their experience.

Madam Speaker, in closing, I would like to take this opportunity to thank all the men and women who serve the American Legion and the American Legion Auxiliary. Their tireless efforts on behalf of the community, state and nation deserve our highest praise. I commend and congratulate all of these officers on their selection to these positions, and wish them further success as they continue to work for our Nation's veterans.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Mr. David Mabie on the occasion of his retirement after 40 years of dedicated public service to the Commonwealth of Virginia.

Mr. Mabie began his career at the Waynesboro Police Department, as one of the original officers of the newly formed Prince William

County division. He served there as a detective until moving to the Commonwealth Attorney's Office in 1980. Throughout his time there, Mr. Mabie investigated major cases involving capital charges, and was successful in bringing convictions in all but one case.

In 1991, Mr. Mabie was elected as Clerk of the Circuit Court in Prince William County, where he has tirelessly worked for the citizens of Northern Virginia. As Circuit Court Clerk, Mr. Mabie has been responsible for organizing regular staff meetings, assisting in the automation of land records, and instituting a dispute resolution program which strives to resolve family conflicts outside the courtroom.

Mr. Mabie has been involved with numerous civic organizations such as the United Way, Regional Jail Board, and the Chamber of Commerce. He will retire on April 1, 2007, and join his wife, Copper, managing the Red Door Art Center in Louisa, Virginia. He also plans to work part- time with the Prince William County Sheriff's Office two days a week.

Madam Speaker, in closing, I would like to extend my heartfelt thanks to Dave Mabie for his years of service and dedication to the Northern Virginia community. I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Mr. Mabie on his retirement and wishing him the best of luck in all future endeavors.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the life of Mr. John ``Jack'' Andrew Sebolka, as he celebrates his 100th birthday.

Jack was born on March 21, 1907, in Wilkes-Barre, PA, and was one of four children born to John and Anne Sebolka. Inspired by his father, Jack went to work in the local coal mines upon his graduation from St. John's University. Realizing that mining was not his calling, he began helping his grandparents with their farm. Throughout the Roaring Twenties and Great Depression, he dove into a myriad of professions including construction, selling furniture, and the gold business. In 1939, Jack became a sales representative for the United Furniture Manufactures, where he worked until his retirement in 1982.

Jack married Marie Bombick on November 21, 1936, in Lake Silkworth, PA. The couple had two children, Ronald and James. The family made their home on a 15-acre farm in Jackson Township, PA, where Jack spent his ``leisure time'' growing vegetables on the farm. Tragically, Marie passed away from cancer in 1967, but Jack never left her side.

In June 1972, Jack remarried to Mary Laux. After their wedding they took a honeymoon trip around the world. They stopped in Bangkok, Thailand, where they spent 5 weeks with his son, James, who was then an advisor to the Thai Government. Mary was struck by cancer in 1976. Once again, Jack helped nurse his wife through treatment, but she passed in 1977.

Jack pressed on with work at United until his diagnosis with Guillian-Barre Syndrome, GBS, which is found in approximately 1 out of every 100,000 persons. Jack was faced with immediate paralysis from the neck down, and remained hospitalized for several months. Through sheer determination and the loving support of his family, Jack beat the odds and began taking small steps after just 7 months of rehabilitation. Doctors called him ``Miracle Man.''

Jack currently resides at the Goodwin House in Alexandria, VA. He enjoys weekly bingo and group crossword puzzle sessions with his friends. Jack has lived a life by the Golden Rule: Give unto others as you would have them give unto you. He demonstrates great faith, patriotism, a strong work ethic and a genuine love for other people.

Madam Speaker, in closing, I would like to extend my warmest wishes to Mr. Sebolka on this special occasion. I ask my colleagues to join me in celebrating his 100th birthday and in wishing him the very best on this day and every day that follows.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 1591. This is not an Emergency War Supplemental; it is the Partisan Repayment Act. Indeed, this legislation is less about supplying the troops than feeding the base.

There is desperate need for a new Iraq policy, and we should be using this opportunity to have a serious discussion. It is unseemly, even embarrassing, to use pork to buy support for bad policy on a bill as important as this one. It makes us look as trifling and greedy as our enemies claim. The well-being of our men and women in uniform is in the balance, as is the future of the Middle East. If ever there was a time to win on the strength of one's ideas, this is it.

I share the concerns of my colleagues regarding the progress of the war, and I believe there is value in setting benchmarks. Ours should not be an open-ended, unquestioning commitment to the Iraqis. They do need to assume more responsibility for their own affairs. It is not the job of our troops to referee partisan quarrels, nor is it our job to baby-sit the Iraqi government.

It is foolish, however, to make such milestones public. It is even more foolish to announce a date for withdrawal. Doing so gives the enemy too much information and too many options.

It is also foolish to codify deadlines. Who's to say the Iraqi government won't make a good faith effort to accomplish the tasks required of them? It would be wise to allow them flexibility, not give them a drop-dead date. We ourselves are working under a continuing resolution because we could not pass more than two appropriations bills last year. Our 5-day workweeks are often 4 days long--who are we to set a deadline in statute?

There is a pressing need to formulate a new policy for Iraq. I am disappointed the Democrats have yet to allow a serious debate on this, the most important issue facing the Congress today. Rather, we have wasted time with a non-binding resolution regarding tactics--not even strategy. Now we send the Iraqis a laundry list of errands and a pre- determined result.

Success in Iraq will require a broad based policy shift. The Iraq Study Group report includes 79 recommendations covering all facets of public policy--military, diplomatic, economic, and social. This report should form the basis of a productive discussion. Unfortunately, the Democratic leadership has opted for a hodge-podge of sound bites masquerading as serious legislation. They have stifled debate rather than encouraged it by refusing to allow any amendments.

Mr. Speaker, this is but the first act in the play. Our own servicemen and women do need the funding this bill would provide. I am confident once we get beyond this charade we will be able to craft responsible legislation to give it to them.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Let me just ask my friend from California, what about the constitutional expert

Ken Starr who has testified under oath that this is constitutional; or Viet Dinh, who was a chief counsel in the Justice Department under President Bush; and John Ashcroft, who wrote the PATRIOT Act and has written an opinion that this is constitutional? Aren't their views worth consideration as well?

Let me just say, a strict reading of the Constitution, if you look just at its face, if you read that, D.C. residents wouldn't have a right to a jury trial because that is only to residents of States. D.C. residents would have no right to sue non-D.C. residents in Federal courts under diversity jurisdiction, which is reserved to residents of States. The full faith and credit clause wouldn't apply to D.C. under the Constitution, because that only applies to States. But Congress, under the District clause, has allowed the District to be treated as a State for those purposes.

The previous speaker says, well, if they can do this, why can't they be treated as a State for other purposes? The city argued under the gun ban that they weren't a State because Congress hadn't specifically said they were a

State, but the District clause is all-inclusive and gives Congress the power to determine what the rights are. We have that right. It is not an inherent right to vote in the House of Representatives, but we have that right under the District clause.

The difference between the House and the Senate in the constitutional reading is the Senate represents States. Individuals represent States, and each State gets two Senators. And the District of Columbia is clearly not a State. But the House of Representatives is of the people among the several States, a different wording. In fact, at the time the Constitution was created, the people in the District were among the several States, and, in fact, the residents of what are now the District voted for Congress the first 12 years of the Republic.

But this is not a right that goes to the District of Columbia. This is a right that goes to the people of the District of Columbia, and Congress has the right to determine whether they have it or not. This was taken up in 1800 when the anti-Federalists won the Presidency by one electoral vote, if you remember, and in a lame duck session this was debated, and, as usually happens, they punted it to the succeeding Congresses.

I think the constitutionality of this thing is very, very clear that, under the District clause, we have the ability in Congress to determine if they get a vote in the House or not. And I just want to set the record straight on that. All of these other rights, jury trial, right to sue, full faith and credit, even the Federal Government would not be allowed to impose Federal taxes in the District under a strict reading of the Constitution. But under law and under the District clause, we have expanded it to the District. I just think the record should reflect that.

That is correct in the case of Virginia, if the gentlelady would allow me.

The District of Columbia portion that came from Virginia went back to Virginia in 1846. And I think it is important for Members to understand the reason for the Virginia section of the District petitioned to go back to Virginia was because they were afraid that Congress was going to enact a ban on slaveholding in the District.

I thank my friend for yielding.

We have Republicans quoting liberal professors and Democrats quoting conservative professors in support of where they are. At the end of the day I believe that if the District were a Republican enclave, our side would be getting up screaming for voting rights and the other side would be saying, no, the Constitution is strict. We are trying to take the politics out of this.

In the last Congress, both committees with jurisdiction under Republican chairmen cleared this bill for the floor and the Republican leadership denied it an opportunity to come to the floor. We could have had a full and open debate at that point. I think it would have been helpful to the process. Now the Democrats are in control and they are bringing this up, not for a full and open debate, unfortunately, but under a closed rule. We should have an open rule on this. At the time when we are spending billions of dollars and sacrificing thousands of lives to bring democracy to Baghdad, to Afghanistan and around the world, shouldn't we look right next door to our friends and neighbors here in the Nation's capital and give them the essence of democracy, the right to vote here on the floor of the House of Representatives? I think we should.

There are different views as to how we should do this. The former chairman of the Judiciary Committee says it's constitutional, but doesn't like the at-large aspect of the Utah seat but we are not able to debate that on the floor today. My friend from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) who has long been a champion of voting rights here has a different mechanism under which this could be established.

I wish we could have a full and open debate on this. I think it would be helpful to the process. And I am really torn. Because on the one hand our side doesn't want the bill to come up at all, and the other side wants this to come up under very closed rules where we can't have full and open debate. I look forward to a spirited colloquy as we move through this. I am going to support the bill in its final form, of course, as it moves through because I think this is something that is long overdue for citizens of the Nation's capital and with a long line of legal precedents which treats the District of Columbia like a State when Congress says it can be treated like a State. Things like the right to trial by jury, paying Federal taxes, other issues that apply only to States under the Constitution but which under the District clause to the Constitution when we apply it to the District, it is treated like a State.

And once again, looking at such conservative jurists as Ken Starr, Viet Dinh who wrote the PATRIOT Act for the Bush administration testified under oath as to its constitutionality. This shouldn't ultimately be locked up in this. This should be about basic voting rights for the capital of the Free World.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).

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

Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from

Georgia (Mr. Price) for the purpose of a unanimous consent request.

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

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

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

Madam Speaker, it is often said that if opportunity doesn't knock, build a door. With this bill, we are doing just that.

Using the materials at hand today, we can open a portal to full democratic participation that for too long has remained locked. The circumstances are right, the stars are aligned, and the proposal is sound.

Four years ago, we saw a confluence of events that set the stage for the compromise we have before us today. Two injustices met to create this opportunity to correct both. On the one hand, a long-ignored historical anomaly denies the citizens of the District of Columbia voting representation in the House of Representatives. On the other hand, a more recent problem with the census denies the citizens of Utah the additional House vote that a true count would have yielded.

As it happens, one jurisdiction is predominantly Democratic, the other predominantly Republican. The circumstances opened the way to a politically neutral solution to both problems.

Throughout our Nation's history, it has been just this kind of win- win compromise that, however rooted in the fleeting circumstances of the day, provide enduring solutions to seemingly intractable problems.

Each of us swears to uphold the Constitution, its letter and spirit. That living document is at its heart the most fundamental right of citizens in a democracy. All the citizens. So we rely on the plenary power found in the District clause to restore the full right of citizenship to our disenfranchised countrymen and women.

After researching every possible avenue to right these wrongs and give the citizens of the District of Columbia and Utah, the next State that is eligible for a vote under the formula, the representation to which they are entitled, we concluded the approach before us today is both constitutionally sound and politically viable.

The former is our sworn duty. The latter is a practical imperative.

In 4 years, I have found no evidence that any Member of this body seriously plans to attempt retrocession or campaign for a constitutional amendment. There is a good reason for that: they are politically not viable. Most Members, including me, don't waste their time tilting at windmills.

By now, every Member is aware of the constitutional arguments. I ask that you think carefully about what you hear today. Every first-year law student in this country learns that you can't just read the Constitution once over literally to figure out what it means. But that is what the other side's arguments are. That is where it stops, and that is where it starts.

Those opposing this bill ignore 200 years of case law and clear instruction from the Court that this is a congressional matter and requires a congressional solution. Under their literal reading of the Constitution, District residents would have no right to a jury trial under the sixth amendment because you have to be a State to have that right.

D.C. residents would have no right to sue people from outside D.C. in the Federal courts; only people from States have that right under Article III, section 2.

The full faith and credit clause would not apply to D.C. because that only applies to States under a literal reading of the Constitution.

And the Federal Government would not be allowed to impose Federal taxes on the District. The Constitution says direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States. Article I, section 2, clause 3.

But in each of these cases, the Supreme Court has held that Congress can consider the District a State for purposes of applying these fundamental provisions. If Congress has the authority to do so regarding these lesser rights and duty, there should be no question we have the same authority to protect the most sacred right of every American: to live and participate in a representative Republic.

It should also be pointed out that Congress granted voting representation in 1790 when it accepted the land that would become the Federal city. It then removed those rights, by statute, 10 years later. Those facts are undisputed. No amendment to the Constitution was considered necessary then. And those opposing the bill today will not explain, only assert, the claimed need for a constitutional amendment to reverse a decision that was made through enactment of a statute.

This problem should be solved. A lot of people today will talk about the Framers and tell us that the Framers intended for the Federal city to have no direct representation.

Do you really believe that if the capital had stayed in New York, the city would have been disenfranchised? Do you believe that if the capital had stayed in Philadelphia, the city would have been disenfranchised? Of course not, and neither should the people of Washington, D.C.

What we know is men and women who fought and died to create this country were willing to die for people who might disagree with them politically. D.C. residents are paying Federal taxes. They are fighting and dying in the Middle East to bring democracy to that part of the world.

This is no mere legal or political science exercise. It's a crisis. Your fellow Americans are being denied the full rights and benefits of representative government. We have before us this unique moment in our history, the opportunity to fulfill the promise of the Constitution and make our democracy whole again.

I hope we hear opportunity knocking, and I hope we hear the faint, but unmistakable whisper of conscience and of history, urging us all to seize the moment with courage and humility.

[From the Washington Post, Mar. 14, 2007]

Rights and Wrong

Historic legislation giving the people of the District a

vote in their national government is being debated in the

House of Representatives. Prospects for its passage have

never been better. The Democrats who control the House have

kept a promise to move the bill forward, but the

disenfranchisement of American citizens shouldn't be about

partisan politics. It should be about what is right and

wrong.

Indeed, the legislation working its way through the House

sprang from he sense of injustice of a Republican House

member from suburban Virginia. Rep. Thomas M. Davis III

believes it is grotesque that D.C. residents are denied

congressional representation. he came up with an ingenious

way to get politics out of the equation. Two seats would be

added to Congress--one for the mostly Democratic District and

the other for heavily Republican Utah. The bill is on a fast

track thanks to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and

Majority Leader Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.). The House Oversight

and Government Reform Committee approved the measure

yesterday, with every Democrat and six Republicans voting for

it. The Judiciary Committee now takes it up, and a battle is

expected.

It's hard to make a case for depriving people of a voice in

Congress when they pay federal taxes, serve on federal juries

and send family members off to war. It's also pretty

embarrassing that the Untied States, while preaching

democracy to the rest of the world, remains the only

democratic country where people in the capital city are

without representation. So opponents of D.C. voting rights

have latched onto the only argument they can make with a

straight face--that the bill is unconstitutional.

Former judges and constitutional scholars such as Kenneth

Starr, Patricia Wald and Viet Dinh, not to mention the

American Bar Association, believe the bill is constitutional.

They argue that Congress has repeatedly treated the District

as if it were a state and that this treatment has been

upheld. For his part, Mr. Davis has delved into history to

make a compelling argument that the lack of a vote was never

the aim of the Founding Fathers but rather an ``undemocratic

accident.''

We concede that serious people hold the contrary view. No

court has ever weighed in on the D.C. Voting Rights Act, so

the constitutional question is open. That, though, is an

issue for the courts to decide, in the event of a legal

challenge. It should not be an excuse for Congress to

continue to deny a basic right to more than half a million

people.

Let me just say to my colleagues, I think the gun ban in the District is ridiculous, and I would join with my colleagues in overturning it. The problem is this motion doesn't do that. Instead of bringing this motion back to the floor forthwith for a vote up or down to continue this resolution and send it to the Senate with the gun ban, it sends it back to the committee; is that correct, Mr. Smith? It does not send it back to the floor, this sends it to committee. So essentially this vote doesn't go anywhere. You can get your vote on gun rights, but it kills the bill, and that is the intention of this. And it is put there to put Members in a difficult situation. If you want to get a vote on District voter rights, you have to vote against this.

I would hope that we can have a free vote on the District gun ban later on. The courts have overturned it. I don't think it is a good law. But this doesn't overturn it because this kills the bill, and with it kills the amendment.

I would urge my colleagues to reject it.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor Linda Trexler, Principal of Neabsco Elementary School, upon being selected as the Prince William County Distinguished Educational Leadership Award winner and being named Prince William County Principal of the Year.

The Washington Post presents annual awards to outstanding educators who ``day after day go beyond the challenges of the highly demanding profession to create exceptional educational environments for Washington area students.'' Principal Trexler certainly fits this definition.

For the past 7 years Principal Trexler has devoted herself to the success of her students at Neabsco Elementary School. Under her leadership the school has become a fully accredited institution, a model of instructional improvement and has twice been named a School of Excellence in the Prince William County Public School system. Additionally, the school boasts a 90.1 percent SOL pass rate in math and a 91.4 percent SOL pass rate in language arts. These awards and statistics show the unique impact that a principal, faculty and student body can achieve when motivated to reach the common goal of academic excellence. It is plain to see that Principal Trexler has been able to lead her school to reach that goal.

Principal Trexler's adoration and devotion to her students has been accepted and returned by the faculty and student body. Upon hearing about these awards, her students organized to write a song and create banners in her honor. This relationship built on respect and love for education has created an atmosphere that deserves celebration and should be replicated throughout the schools of our area and our Nation.

Madam Speaker, in closing, I would like to commend and congratulate Ms. Linda Trexler on her tireless efforts to ensure that the students of Neabsco Elementary School receive the quality education they deserve. I call upon my colleagues to join me in applauding Principal Trexler for receiving the 2007 Prince William County Distinguished Educational Leadership Award and being named Prince William County Principal of the Year. I wish Principal Trexler, her faculty and her students continued success in the years to come.

Madam Speaker, I rise today to honor the 60th anniversary of the Kiwanis Club of Woodbridge, Virginia.

In 1947, Frank Sigman and Carroll White noticed a dearth of civic engagement in their local Woodbridge community. Having been previously exposed to Kiwanis, they decided that the culture of civic and community engagement promoted by Kiwanis would greatly benefit the area. They canvassed their neighborhoods in an effort to create an interest in starting a Woodbridge club. This work paid off and on March 22, 1947, the Woodbridge chapter was chartered. In fact, they were so successful in creating support that more than 200 people attended what turned out to be a gala affair.

Taking root from these strong seeds, the club became a positive factor in shaping the development of Woodbridge. In the early days, the club helped establish a public water and sewage system, create a rescue squad, obtain land for a little league and provided organizational support for the creation of the Prince William County Police Department and the formation of the Potomac Hospital.

Currently, the club maintains its strong ties to the local community by working with the local Boys and Girls Clubs, the Salvation Army, Action in the Community Through Service, Potomac Hospital's Mobile Family Health Clinic, the Senior Citizen's Center and the Special Olympics to provide services and financial support to those in need.

Kiwanis is an international institution created to ``serve the children of the world.'' They were founded on six guiding principles that continue to lead their activities to this day. These six permanent ``Objects of Kiwanis'' are: to give primacy to the human and spiritual rather than to the material values of life; to encourage daily living of the Golden Rule; to promote the adoption and application of higher social, business, and professional standards; to develop by precept and example a more intelligent, aggressive and serviceable citizenship; to provide a practical means to form enduring friendships; and better communities and to cooperate in creating and maintaining sound public opinion and high idealism.

The Woodbridge Kiwanis Club continues to use these noble principles to guide their efforts in the community to this day. It is plain to see that the club has played a fundamental role in making this area of Eastern Prince William County a great place to live, work and play.

Madam Speaker, in closing, I would like to commend and congratulate all Kiwanians on the service they provide to their communities. Their tireless efforts on behalf of the next generation truly merit recognition. I call upon my colleagues to join me in applauding the Woodbridge Kiwanis Club on its 60th anniversary and in wishing them continued success in the years to come.

Madam Speaker, it is an honor for me to recognize Deborah Cohn, Deputy Commissioner for Trademark Operations at the United States Patent and Trademark Office, USPTO, for her leadership in promoting government telework. Telework offers a great opportunity for the Federal Government to help solve environmental, traffic, and possibly continuity-of-operations issues, especially on the busy highways of Northern Virginia. It is well known that the Federal Government lags behind the private sector in providing telework options for its workforce. Yet, USPTO has set itself apart with its telework program.

With her foresight, creativity, and perseverance, Deborah Cohn pioneered the development of USPTO's first telework program at a time when telework was far from the norm. Ms. Cohn not only convinced reluctant agency executives, she forged coalitions with managers, IT personnel, and the employee union to create an innovative, award- winning telework program at the USPTO.

This month, the Trademark Work at Home, TWAH, program celebrates its 10th anniversary. TWAH, which began as a feasibility pilot of 18 teleworkers, today stands as the most innovative and progressive program in the Federal Government. It involves more than 220 employees, or 85 percent of eligible examining attorneys, who spend the vast majority of their workweek at home.

The USPTO program has received awards from the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, the Telework Exchange, the Mid- Atlantic Telework Advisory Council, and the International Telework Association and Council. Just last month, USPTO received the 2007 Work- Life Innovative Excellence Award from the Alliance for Work-Life Progress for the Trademark Work at Home Program.

The TWAH program now serves as a prototype of an innovative telework program, combining management-by-objective with hoteling, resulting in documented savings of space and cost savings for the agency. The ability to manage employees remotely using clear, measurable performance goals, regardless of where they work, models an extremely successful telecommuting program for government agencies. The TWAH program also demonstrates that flexibility of time and location enables employees to maximize efficiency, which is reflected by production gains of teleworkers. The phenomenally low attrition rate among TWAH participants should encourage agencies that face recruitment and retention problems to consider such programs.

It is essential that federal agencies maintain procedures for continuing government operations in the midst of, and following, a national emergency caused by terrorism or natural causes. Effective telework plans and procedures help ensure critical agency operations continue uninterrupted. Federal agencies with telecommuting programs receive significant benefits, including a more productive workforce, increased employee morale and quality of life, and the ability to better accommodate employees with health problems or child- or elder- care responsibilities. Teleworking eliminates a significant number of vehicle trips during peak hours, which aids the environment. The Federal Government should be a telecommuting leader, yet many federal agencies have been reluctant to embrace the concept. That is why I am delighted to congratulate Ms. Cohn on her outstanding leadership on telework issues.

Ms. Cohn began her career at USPTO in 1983 as a trademark examining attorney. In 2001, she joined the Senior Executive Service as a Trademark Group Director. She became Deputy Commissioner for Trademark Operations in 2005 and currently oversees the examination and processing of applications throughout the trademark operation.

Throughout her legal career at USPTO, Ms. Cohn has been involved in work-life improvement initiatives. She is a former Council of Excellence in Government Fellow, where she first developed the seeds of the trademark work-at-home program. Ms. Cohn is a graduate of The American University and George Mason University School of Law. Ms. Cohn is a sought-after resource and speaker as an expert on the development and management of telework programs.

I ask that my colleagues join me in recognizing Ms. Cohn's efforts in making USPTO's telework program the most successful operation of its kind within the federal government. Additionally, I call upon my colleagues to join me in celebrating the 10th anniversary of the Trademark Office's award-winning telework program.