[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 14 (Wednesday, January 24, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H891-H902]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[[Page H891]]
{time} 1015
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H. RES. 78, PERMITTING DELEGATES AND THE
RESIDENT COMMISSIONER TO CAST VOTES IN THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 86 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 86
Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it
shall be in order without intervention of any point of order
to consider in the House the resolution (H. Res. 78) amending
the Rules of the House of Representatives to permit Delegates
and the Resident Commissioner to the Congress to cast votes
in the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the
Union. The resolution shall be considered as read. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the
resolution and on any amendment thereto to final adoption
without intervening motion or demand for division of the
question except: (1) one hour of debate on the resolution
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking
minority member of the Committee on Rules; (2) the amendment
printed in the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying
this resolution, if offered by Representative Kirk of
Illinois or his designee, which shall be in order without
intervention of any point of order or demand for division of
the question, shall be considered as read, and shall be
separately debatable for 20 minutes equally divided and
controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and (3) one
motion to recommit which may not contain instructions.
Sec. 2. During consideration of H. Res. 78 pursuant to this
resolution, notwithstanding the operation of the previous
question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the
bill to a time designated by the Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
McGovern) is recognized for 1 hour.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, for the purposes of debate only, I yield
to my friend from California, the distinguished ranking member of the
Committee on Rules, Mr. Dreier, 30 minutes; pending which I yield
myself such time as I may consume. And during consideration of this
resolution, all time yielded is for the purposes of debate only.
Mr. Speaker, the rule before us provides 1 hour of general debate in
the House equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking
minority member on the Committee on Rules. The rule waives all points
of order against consideration of the resolution and provides that the
resolution shall be considered as read. The rule makes in order the
amendment printed in the Rules report accompanying this resolution, if
offered by Representative Kirk of Illinois or his designee. The
amendment shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for 20
minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an
opponent, and shall not be subject to a demand for a division of the
question. The rule also waives all points of order against
consideration of the amendment printed in the report, and contains one
motion to recommit, which may not contain instructions. Finally, the
rule provides that, notwithstanding the operation of the previous
question, the Chair may postpone further consideration of the bill to a
time designated by the Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, let me clearly state that there is no obligation for any
Member to offer the amendment. The rule simply allows Mr. Kirk or his
designee the option of offering this amendment if they choose to do so.
Also, Mr. Speaker, the Republicans were given the option to offer a
substitute, and they declined.
This resolution will amend the House rules and allow the five
Delegates who were elected to the House of Representatives to vote in
the Committee of the Whole.
The Committee of the Whole is comprised of all Members of the House
of Representatives, and is a procedural forum in which the House
considers debates and votes on amendments to most of the legislation
reported out of committee. After consideration of amendments in the
Committee of the Whole, legislation is reported to the floor of the
House for final consideration.
As we all know, Mr. Speaker, Delegates and Resident Commissioner have
the same powers, rights and responsibilities as full Members of the
House, with some exceptions. They cannot vote on the floor in the House
or in the Committee of the Whole, they cannot offer a motion to
reconsider, and they are not counted for quorum purposes.
Mr. Speaker, this resolution provides certain protections that have
been ruled constitutional by Federal courts. Specifically, no Delegate
or Resident Commissioner can provide the deciding margin of any
amendment considered in the Committee of the Whole. In other words, if
the vote in the Committee of the Whole is decided by five or fewer
votes, it must be reconsidered immediately by the House of
Representatives.
Let me state this clearly for all my colleagues. No Delegate or
Resident Commissioner will provide the margin of victory or defeat of
any amendment. It is that clear.
Delegates and the Resident Commissioner will not be able to vote on
final passage, nor will they be able to vote on procedural motions.
Mr. Speaker, the Delegates and Resident Commissioner represent people
who serve in our Armed Forces. Thirty thousand residents of Guam are
military personnel. Over 2,400 soldiers from the territories and the
District of Columbia are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan today, wars
that this Chamber voted in favor of. American Samoa has the highest per
capita casualty rate of any State or territory for the war in Iraq.
We believe that the people who fight and die wearing the uniform of
the United States deserve to have their voices heard in the people's
House.
Beyond that, Mr. Speaker, residents of all territories and the
District of Columbia pay Social Security taxes, Medicare taxes under
FICA. The people living in the territories and the District of Columbia
deserve to have a voice in Congress, and their elected representatives,
the Delegates and the Resident Commissioner, deserve to have a vote in
the Committee of the Whole.
Mr. Speaker, while these voting privileges are in large part
symbolic, and I, for one, believe that the District of Columbia, where
people actually pay Federal taxes in addition to all the other
contributions that they make to this country, deserve to have full
voting rights in this Congress, but this is the least, I think, we can
do to restore some modicum of representation to these millions of
Americans, and I strongly urge my colleagues to support this rule and
vote for the resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise to express my appreciation to my very good friend from
Massachusetts for yielding me the time and for his effort in getting us
to the point where we are.
But, Mr. Speaker, I do rise in very, very strong opposition to not
only this rule, but the underlying legislation, H. Res. 78, as well,
which, as the gentleman has said very clearly, will authorize the
Delegates and the Resident Commissioner to vote on legislation that is
on the House floor.
I must confess that I am broadly disappointed in how we have arrived
here. I am disappointed that we are here again debating a proposal
which is, I truly believe, at its heart, unconstitutional.
While I have the utmost respect for my colleagues from the
territories, and from the District of Columbia, if they want to vote in
this body, Mr. Speaker, they should begin the statehood process, plain
and simple. They should pursue that with great vigor and enthusiasm.
And those who are the strongest supporters of it now have a majority in
this House, which, I believe, should allow them to proceed with that
effort if they so choose.
Now, Mr. Speaker, reasonable people can disagree as to the merits of
this proposal. We are going to hear an awful lot this morning. However,
I am also disappointed that we find ourselves in a situation where my
colleagues at the Rules Committee have, once again, rolled back the
transparency that I was very proud to work so diligently on behalf of
when I had the privilege to serve as chairman of the committee. First,
it was the ability to enforce the rules regarding putting record votes
in committee reports. Thrown out the window. Next, rather than
following the example that I was privileged to set in the 109th
Congress of conducting
[[Page H892]]
actual hearings and markups of rule changes, we find ourselves, Mr.
Speaker, without the benefit of hearings with outside witnesses,
without a committee report explaining the committee's thinking, without
any opportunity for the minority to have its views published as part of
the legislative history.
And I understand full well, Mr. Speaker, this, for the average
American, is seen as inside baseball stuff. But deliberative democracy
is something that is very near and dear to the founding of this
country, the very basis on which our Nation was founded. And last night
we had a great speech from the President of the United States that was
delivered here in which he talked about our goal of working together.
But more than that, Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed about how my
colleagues are approaching the most basic tasks of the Rules Committee.
The Rules Committee is the all-important committee of the House, the
traffic cop through which every major piece of legislation must go
before it is considered here on the House floor. With the exception of
privileged resolutions and items that we consider under suspension of
the rules, what we really do here, and the appropriations process, we
have tremendous responsibility. I argue that the Rules Committee is the
single most important committee that exists in this institution because
of the very, very unique role that we play.
I am so disappointed in how I have seen the basic handling of this
committee. Any of you who have had the honor to serve as Chairs of
committees know the challenges of crafting an agenda, of building
support and moving that support forward. But as chairmen, we have a
basic responsibility to maintain those very basic workings of the
committee to ensure that Members have the documents that they need to
discuss and debate matters that are before them.
Now, I don't want to belabor this, Mr. Speaker, by going through the
particulars of yesterday's meeting, but I have to say it is very, very
disappointing. Let me just say that my colleagues failed, the majority
failed, at the most basic responsibilities, which disappoints me even
more.
The last time this body considered, Mr. Speaker, the issue of
Delegate voting, it was as part of an opening day rules package. The
rule was changed, despite bipartisan opposition. That rule change led
the then minority leader, our friend Mr. Michel, to file a lawsuit
against the House to stop Delegates from voting on the House floor.
{time} 1030
Well, the courts upheld the rule. They did so only because of the
parliamentary sleight of hand which makes the right conferred on our
colleagues illusory, illusory at the very best.
Mr. Speaker, 14 years later, this body is made up of 299 Members, 299
Members who were not here, never had a chance to vote on this issue
before. And as I said, even back then there has never been a hearing,
never been a process for us to hear from the scholars who clearly,
clearly would spend a great deal of time and energy considering whether
or not we should proceed with allowing the people who are not
Representatives from States to have a chance to vote on the House
floor.
So, Mr. Speaker, this is a very, very bad rule. It is a bad, bad, bad
process. And what we witnessed last night in the Rules Committee was
one of, if not the greatest, disservice to this institution that I have
ever seen, it clearly is up there as one of the most pathetic and sad
and disappointing things that I have ever seen.
As I said before, if my colleagues want the Delegates and the
Resident Commissioner to enjoy the benefits conferred upon
Representatives of the several States, they should encourage efforts to
achieve statehood. There is nothing, nothing, Mr. Speaker, to be served
by moving this unconstitutional rule any further in the process.
And to the point that was offered by my friend from Massachusetts on
this notion of a substitute provided, I was taught very early on when I
came to this institution more than a quarter of a century ago that you
do not amend a bad bill. There is nothing that can be done in the
amendment process that could make this constitutional.
And this notion that we have gone the entire route, the United States
Supreme Court has not considered this, Mr. Speaker. I believe that what
we are going to do here today, if it in fact succeeds, what we are
going to do is we are going to embark on another legal struggle just as
we did 14 years ago.
So I urge my colleagues to vote against this rule. And if the rule
does prevail, I urge them to vote against the underlying resolution,
Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, again I would remind my colleagues that the minority was
given the opportunity for a substitute and they declined. I would
remind my colleagues in the House that the one Member of the minority
who came before the Rules Committee and offered an amendment, that
amendment has been made in order if he so chooses to offer it.
So I guess, maybe because this is not a closed rule, it does not fit
into the Republican talking points today, they are a little bit upset.
But the bottom line is that we on the majority side have done our best
to try to accommodate the minority.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, not at this time.
Mr. DREIER. I completely understand.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I am glad the gentleman respects the
courtesies of the decorum of the House.
Mr. Speaker, let me also say that it is a little bit difficult for
any of us on this side of the aisle to stand here and be lectured about
process by the distinguished former chairman of the Rules Committee, to
be lectured about transparency, and about how the committee should be
run.
I recall being in the committee when the USA PATRIOT Act was brought
before the Rules Committee, went through a process of regular order,
bipartisan process, and then was rewritten in the Rules Committees
without anybody knowing what was going on, and then brought to the
floor under a very closed process.
I remember a special interest provision that magically appeared on a
conference report after the report was signed and closed. That is not
the process that this new Democratic majority wants to be like.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McGOVERN. I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman goes through this litany of
arguments, I would ask my friend if we ever, ever denied the wishes of
a Member who asked that an amendment be withdrawn and gone ahead and
made that amendment in order.
Mr. McGOVERN. I reclaim my time.
Mr. Speaker, I could be here all day, all week, all month and perhaps
all year documenting and listing occasion after occasion after occasion
where the former majority, I think, broke the rules of this House and
did a great disservice to the rules of this House.
We have done our best to accommodate the minority on this rule. They
had the opportunity to offer a substitute, they declined. An amendment
that was brought before the Rules Committee has been made in order. If
they don't want to offer it, they don't have to offer it. In fact, if
they don't want it in the rule, we have made the offer that if they
want to offer an amendment to strike the Kirk provision, they can offer
an amendment on this floor and we will be happy to accept it.
So I think, Mr. Speaker, that this kind of talk of a bad process, and
I should also point out just for the record that the Committee on Rules
met in the afternoon, Mr. Dreier, not in the evening. Things have
changed. We meet in the light of day, not in the middle of the night
anymore.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from the
Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen).
Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of what is a very
fair rule, H. Res. 86, to provide for the consideration of H. Res. 78,
to amend the rules of the House of Representatives to permit Delegates
and the Resident Commissioner to cast votes in the Committee of the
Whole.
But I see no reason for any amendment to this very straightforward
provision that is simply the right thing to
[[Page H893]]
do. It is a rule that we have asked for in every Congress since I have
been here, since the 105th, when the Republicans were in the majority,
but have never had a chance to become a part of the rule.
I want to commend and thank my friend and colleague, our majority
leader, Steny Hoyer, as well as the original cosponsors of the
resolution, Majority Whip Clyburn, Caucus Chair Emanuel, Vice Chair
Larson, Representative Becerra and Rules Committee Chairwoman
Slaughter. My fellow Delegates and I greatly appreciate their steadfast
support for inclusion and full participation of all Americans in our
national assembly.
A few minutes ago I took to the floor to express my condolences and
that of my constituents and to recognize the service to the family of
two members of the Virgin Islands National Guard who were killed along
with 10 other soldiers in the crash of a Black Hawk helicopter
northeast of Baghdad on Saturday.
I mention this because you will hear a litany of objections from our
colleagues on the other side of the aisle to the limited extension of
democracy for me and the other Delegates because of constitutional
concerns.
This attempt to prevent us from the practice of democracy in this
limited way is shameful because my Republican colleagues know well that
the proposal the House will be voting on today is constitutional, and
that the Federal courts have held that it is.
Why then are they insisting that my fellow Delegates and I not be
given the opportunity to participate more fully in the deliberations on
legislation on the floor on behalf of our constituents, which is in
keeping with our country's spirit of inclusion and democratic ideals?
When my Republican colleagues bring up the question of payment of
taxes, they know well that the residents of the territories pay Federal
taxes, we pay full Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes like
every other American. We also pay the same Federal income taxes as
prescribed by the tax laws that are passed here which I cannot vote on.
It is just under the principle of no taxes without representation,
which goes back to the founding of our country, Congress allows those
taxes to remain in the territory to fulfill Federal responsibilities
there.
Moreover, because we get to keep those Federal taxes that we pay, we
do not get the full benefit of all Federal programs. In the Medicaid
program, for example, we receive less than a quarter of the Federal
share of the program that we would receive if we were fully
participating in the program.
Mr. Speaker, as a resident of a U.S. territory, my constituents
proudly fulfill the ultimate responsibility of citizenship, being
called upon to fight and die for our country, but without having a say
in choosing who the Commander in Chief will be or having a
representative in Congress with the right to vote on legislation on the
floor.
I know this cannot completely correct this under the Constitution,
but we can make this small step toward inclusion of all Americans in
the democratic process. So I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule and a
``yes'' vote on H. Res. 78.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, my distinguished colleague from Miami, Mr.
Diaz-Balart, has just read the appellate court decision on this issue
and has spent a great deal of time and effort, and I yield him 3
minutes.
Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. Speaker, let me begin by expressing my profound respect for the
Delegates in this House, and most especially for their constituents.
But above all, I rise, Mr. Speaker, with profound respect for the
documents that we all swear to uphold when we are elected, when we take
possession of this awesome responsibility, an honor granted to us by
our constituents.
I think there can be few parts of the United States Constitution that
are clearer when Article I, section 2 state ``that the House of
Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second year
by the people of the several States.''
Now, when in 1970, as you know Mr. Speaker, before there had been by
law and precedent, Delegates of territories had been given some
privileges in this House. And then in 1970 there was a clarification of
those privileges. The vote was given to Delegates in standing
committees in 1970. At that time, when the vote was given to Delegates
in standing committees, there was some concern that that may be
unconstitutional.
In fact, there was a colloquy on this floor where Congressman B.F.
Sisk of California asked future Speaker, then Representative Tom Foley,
about that issue. And I would like to read what future Speaker Foley
said. ``Now, it is very clear that a constitutional amendment would be
required to give the Resident Commissioner,'' and he is speaking about
all of the Delegates, ``a vote in the Committee of the Whole or the
full House.''
The point is that the constitutional issue does not touch preliminary
advisory votes, which is what standing committee votes are, but only
the votes which are cast in the Committee of the Whole or the full
House.
Those votes, Mr. Foley said, can be cast only by Members of Congress.
Now the appellate court, interestingly enough, and I really find it
difficult to believe that it was not appealed to the Supreme Court,
because the appellate court said, well, true, but we are not dealing
with votes in this rule, we are dealing with a figment of our
imagination related to votes because they do not count.
If they do count in the outcome of an amendment, there is an
automatic revote. So they are not really votes. So since they are not
really votes, they are not really constitutional. I think that was not
a serious, I respectfully say this, ruling by the district court. But
obviously this time if it does pass, I would assume that it will go to
the Supreme Court where perhaps there will be a more serious ruling.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 3 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from New York, who was actually born in the
territory of Puerto Rico, Mr. Serrano.
(Mr. SERRANO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SERRANO. I thank the gentleman. You are right. Perhaps it is that
example that I present to you that shows why the system is broken.
Because my parents chose to move in 1950 to New York, I am able to be a
Member of Congress with full voting rights.
Had I stayed in Puerto Rico, I could only aspire to be a Resident
Commissioner, which is fine enough, but without full voting rights. So,
question: Since when does residency overpower and overtake citizenship?
The 4 million people who live in Puerto Rico, the citizens, American
citizens who live in all of the territories, have no way to represent
themselves in Congress, have no way to vote for the President of the
United States.
At this very moment, dozens of Puerto Ricans are mourned as they have
died in the war in Iraq. Yet, their colleagues who will come back will
not be able to express themselves in Congress, or express themselves
through a Presidential vote in terms of how they feel about that war or
about that service.
And so the issue today is simply this: Do you believe that American
citizens, American citizens, that has to be repeated, American
citizens, who live in territories, not States, have certain rights? I
believe they have full rights. If it was up to me they would have full
voting representation.
All we are saying today is that those Delegates, these
representatives, will have a right to participate on the House floor.
{time} 1045
We don't even go far enough to say that if the vote makes a
difference, it stays put; there is a revote.
So what are we really giving them? An opportunity to participate in
democracy. How can we be trying to spread democracy throughout the
world when we are not willing to spread it right here at home?
Four million citizens live in the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. Those
4 million could have six or seven Members of Congress if they were a
State. The gentleman, rightfully so, says, well, if they want to be a
State, they should be a State. There is only one problem with that: The
group holding the colony, the American Government, has to initiate that
progress, that system, to bring people into the Union.
[[Page H894]]
You can't hold a colony for 108 years, in the case of Puerto Rico, and
expect them to tell you at what time they want to be whatever they want
to be, because for 108 years you have divided them into three different
movements: independence, Commonwealth, statehood.
If we are holding the territory of Puerto Rico, it is our
responsibility to say, we are ready to invite you to come in.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SERRANO. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would simply say that the gentleman's
party is in charge now, and the process of beginning that move is
really in your court. It is one that we will be very, very interested
to engage in and look at and consider. I think that it would be an
absolutely fascinating debate.
Mr. SERRANO. Reclaiming my time, that is a great suggestion. I am
sorry that you didn't do it for the last 12 years.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am very happy to yield 2
minutes to a very hardworking Member of Congress, our friend from
Georgia, Dr. Price.
(Mr. PRICE of Georgia asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding
on this extremely important issue. I, too, rise with great respect for
the individuals who are Delegates and our Resident Commissioner. I also
want to make it certain that I state up front that we commend all of
the men and women who fight our battle in this war on terror with the
recognition and appreciation that those men and women serve in a
voluntary capacity, and our hearts and prayers go out to them and their
families.
I do want to say, however, Mr. Speaker, that this process is a
remarkable abuse of power. I oppose the rule and the underlying bill on
the basis of both process and policy, which I believe to be flawed, and
also because it is remarkably unconstitutional.
I am oftentimes reminded of the Lewis Carroll book, and sometimes I
feel that way: Just because you say it is so doesn't make it so.
Individuals who promote what we are doing right now believe, in fact,
that they can just make up rules at a whim. In fact, we are tied by the
ultimate document of our Nation, and that is the United States
Constitution. It makes it very clear in that Constitution, Article I,
section 2, that the House of Representatives shall be composed of
Members chosen every second year by the people of the several States.
It doesn't say territories, it doesn't say the Delegates of the
territories, it doesn't say Resident Commissioner.
I might, indeed, support a move for statehood for any of those
entities. However, this is an unconscionable action. This is a
violation of the public trust, and it is a clear abuse of power.
Under this strategy, under this Democrat plot, the majority party
could seat anybody, anybody, in the House. Who is next? Who would you
like to seat next? Howard Dean? He has a significant constituency. Why
not have Howard Dean have a seat in the United States House of
Representatives and a vote in the Committee of the Whole?
Mr. Speaker, the American people are disgusted with this level of
arrogance and the abuse of power that this demonstrates. I urge my
colleagues to defeat this rule and to defeat the underlying bill. We
will ultimately see the final defeat of this in the Supreme Court of
the United States.
Mr. McGOVERN. Let me encourage the gentleman from Georgia to read the
rule. The Republicans were offered the right for a substitute. They
could have had a substitute that null and voided this entire
resolution, and they chose not to.
There is an amendment made in order under the rule by the gentleman
from Illinois or his designee, which I strongly disagree with, that
would essentially gut this entire provision. It would allow no one,
with the possible exception of the gentlewoman who represents the
District of Columbia, to be able to participate. So the opportunity is
there. What the gentleman needs to do is read the rule.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Guam (Ms.
Bordallo).
(Ms. BORDALLO asked and was given permission to revise and extend her
remarks.)
Ms. BORDALLO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule under
consideration which, if adopted, will allow this House to openly and
fairly debate an issue important to my constituents and to our fellow
Americans who reside right here in the shadow of the Capitol dome, the
citizens of our Nation's Capital City, and our fellow Americans who
reside in the U.S. territories.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on this rule because it means we can move
forward with this important debate. Our participation in the Committee
of the Whole, a symbolic vote, in the manner proposed by the amendment
to the rules would be consistent with the very foundations of our
representative democracy.
This issue is about elected public office for which we, as Members
and Delegates alike, take a solemn oath. Like all Members, we, too,
solemnly affirm to support and defend the Constitution of the United
States and to well and faithfully discharge the duties inherent with
that responsibility.
Mr. Speaker, it is in keeping with this oath that I come to the floor
today to appeal for support on the rule and the resolution on principle
and on the merits of this issue.
This is about representation, the very core of this institution. This
is about a symbolic but meaningful gesture. It is about inclusion. It
is about the principle that every American deserves to be represented
with a vote in Congress.
This is a step in the right direction. It is not without precedent,
and it has survived review by the judicial branch. The history of
service by Delegates to Congress from the territories dates back almost
to the founding of our country. The noted and well-respected historian
Robert Remini, in his excellent history of the House published just
last year, notes that one of the most unique features of the House of
Representatives under the Constitution is the fact that Delegates from
the territories can participate, and have participated, in important
debates.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on this rule in the spirit of this tradition.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am very happy to yield 1
minute to a very hardworking Member from Pittsburgh (Mr. Tim Murphy).
Mr. TIM MURPHY of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, we certainly appreciate
and admire all of the citizens of the United States and all those from
territories, and they participate in debate here.
One of the things that helps us understand what takes place here, I
would like to go back to what happens in Alleghany County where I live
in the city of Pittsburgh. We have an Alleghany County Council, and
they meet in the city of Pittsburgh regularly, and some members of that
council are citizens of the city of Pittsburgh; but their jurisdiction
is not the city of Pittsburgh. What would happen if they decided it
would be their jurisdiction to vote on issues that affected that city
on matters of taxation and other issues that take place? I believe the
courts would say that just because you are citizens of this area does
not mean that your jurisdiction of your elected body extends to that
city, and courts would strike it down.
This is not an issue of whether or not we respect and admire our
friends and fellow citizens from these territories. It is the matter of
the rules of what our Constitution states and what people can represent
and what should be allowed in this body. It concerns me that on the
tote boards here of the list of votes, it does not say whether somebody
is a full Member or a Delegate. That, I believe, is something that is
also going to mislead the American public as to the vote totals here.
But more than anything else, to be able to vote on issues that affect
my constituents, whether it is taxation or other issues of
representation, it is simply not in our Constitution to have that
there, and I urge Members to vote ``no'' on this.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentlewoman from
the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton), the District of Columbia, a
place where there is taxation but not full representation.
[[Page H895]]
Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding, and for
reminding this House of the bottom line.
The delegate vote resolution on the floor will confuse many, anger
others, and needlessly divide the people's House about a right to vote
settled by the Federal courts 14 years ago.
Mr. Speaker, during the 103rd Congress, I had just finished my
freshmen year. When the Democrats were in the majority, I submitted a
legal memorandum and requested and obtained the right to vote in the
Committee of the Whole for the residents of the District of Columbia.
The House decided to include the other Delegates as well because we
normally have all been treated the same. Of course, we had no
objection.
The Democrats, however, sent the matter to outside attorneys and
experts who confirmed that a Delegate vote would be constitutional, and
the House acted.
The Republican minority then sued the House. However, the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia and the U.S. Court of
Appeals both confirmed the constitutionality of the House's action in
allowing Delegate voting in the Committee of the Whole, just as
Congress had long done in subject matter committees created by the
House.
The Republicans took control in the 104th Congress and withdrew the
only vote the residents of the District of Columbia have ever had on
the floor for more than 200 years.
I say to my friends on the other side of the aisle, there is nothing
left to debate about. The courts have now spoken. You had your say. In
a debate when the Democrats did it the right way, simply put it in the
rules and allowed full debate, you debated then. You took it to the
courts. You debated again, and you took it to the Court of Appeals, and
you debated it again. If there had to be a debate, it should have been
on January 4 when this Congress convened.
But for reasons I have not been able to find, it wasn't in the rules
the way it was in the rules when I first got this vote. I want to be
clear, this was a breakthrough for the District of Columbia when after
my first term, I got this vote. My residents, seeing the first thing
trotted out of this House now is not H.R. 328, for 4 years we have
tried to get the full vote, but the vote I got 14 years ago, regard
this as a setback for the District of Columbia.
This House and the Senate in 2006 reauthorized the Voting Rights Act
of 1965. My friends, the D.C. vote is the Voting Rights Act of 2007,
and we will be held accountable to enact this bill.
This is not my fight. The civil rights movement has spent 4 years, 4
years in actions all over America to get support for the full House
vote for the District of Columbia. Most Americans expect that a vote
for the District of Columbia will be the vote they see come from the
House first. They are going to be completely confused.
I ask my colleagues on the other side of the aisle not to allow this
needless debate to poison the atmosphere that Tom Davis and I have
struggled to create for the last 4 years in a bipartisan bill for the
full House vote for the District of Columbia.
The right to vote was taken out of the rules by the Republicans. If
the Republicans took it out of the rules, it obviously was an
obligation of the Democrats to put it back in. They had no alternative.
Why not put it back in the rules? Why are we having to be drawn and
quartered as Delegates out here? There are differences being drawn out
here. Why is this debate dividing this House and seeking to divide the
Delegates? Why is there a debate that divides me from my brothers and
sisters who are Delegates? Why have you done this to us?
And don't you take the bait. Please don't take the bait. Respect the
Delegates, not just me who pays Federal income taxes, but the other
Delegates who fight and die in war disproportionately compared to the
rest of us. What has my side done, giving the Republicans a nonissue?
{time} 1100
Worse, they have subjected us to controversy and we don't want to be
controversial. We want Delegates to be fully respected.
It is heartbreaking for me. This debate is entirely heartbreaking for
me. As you know, this vote is not the full vote. That is what is
heartbreaking. Look at the calendar. The calendar is empty because the
committees are just organizing. Why isn't H.R. 328 the first bill out
of the Democratic House? That is what I cannot explain to my
constituents. They don't understand this debate. Somebody has got to
come to this floor and tell me why I have to plead for the vote that
the courts said I was entitled to 14 years ago.
It is time to go where we left off. Mark up at Judiciary Committee
and let us get that vote out of here. For goodness sakes, you have got
to give this vote to the Delegates. Move on.
The residents of the District of Columbia have been grateful for
those Republicans who have supported our full House vote and for
Democrats who have done so for so long.
The Delegate vote is unavoidable. Do it, get it done. But it is less
than the full vote that the District of Columbia deserves and that you
have supported. It does not set the standard have set for yourselves--
to have me to come to the floor to ask for a vote that I won 14 years
ago. The standard we have to meet is the standard we set for ourselves.
Full voting rights for the District of Columbia.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, the very thoughtful remarks of our friend
from the District of Columbia underscore the great challenge that we
have here on both sides.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my very good friend from
Hollidaysburg, Pennsylvania (Mr. Shuster).
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
I rise today with great respect for the Delegates and the Resident
Commissioner and all the people that they represent. But I strongly
oppose both this rule and the underlying resolution.
The resolution we are considering today is, pure and simple, a power
grab. There is no way I can support a resolution that dilutes the
rights of the hardworking people of western and central Pennsylvania,
and there is no reason they should support representatives that have
their rights diluted.
The Democratic scheme tramples on the Constitution and the design of
one man, one vote. Article I, section 2 of the Constitution clearly
states the House ``shall be comprised of Members chosen by the people
of the several States.'' It does not provide full voting privileges for
Delegates representing non-State territories.
Plain and simple, this is representation without taxation. This
proposal will allow the Democratic Delegates to raise the taxes on the
American people, but then they will not have to pay them.
I strongly encourage all members of the Pennsylvania delegation to
vote against this resolution and protect the rights of the hardworking
people of Pennsylvania.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavaega).
(Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I know that some of our colleagues on
the other side of the aisle have seriously challenged the
constitutionality of this proposed rule, as it was indicated yesterday
by our good friend and colleague from the State of Louisiana and also
now reiterated by my good friend from California.
Mr. Speaker, this proposed rule has already gone through the process
where 13 of our Republican friends from the other side of the aisle 13
years ago filed a lawsuit in the district court, Federal District Court
of the District of Columbia, to challenge the constitutionality of this
proposed rule. And what happens? The judge ruled that it was
constitutional. Our friends on the other side appealed the case to the
Federal Circuit Court of the Court of Appeals of the District of
Columbia, and they reaffirmed the decision of the lower court.
So when you talk about the constitutionality of this issue, Mr.
Speaker, I submit to my good friends on the other side of the aisle,
the constitutionality of this proposed rule is moot. It is a moot
issue. We have already discussed this in the court.
Now, if my good friends on the other side of the aisle would like to
appeal this case to the Supreme Court, then let us do it. But as far as
I can read and with my limited knowledge of constitutional law, Mr.
Speaker, this matter has already been settled in the
[[Page H896]]
courts that say this proposed rule is constitutional.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am very happy to yield 1
minute to our good friend from Pennsylvania (Mr. English).
Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise, sadly, to oppose
this unconscionable power grab in which the Democrats, who claimed they
have changed, have clearly indicated that they are back. They are up to
the old tricks that they tried 12 years ago when they were thrown out
of the majority. Here they are again using the Constitution as a
political Handiwipe and extending full voting rights to favored rotten
boroughs.
Now what is a rotten borough? During the 19th century in Britain,
there were municipalities with tiny populations that were given full
voting rights, and it took Britain years to get rid of that political
inequity.
Today, to these people we are talking about extending voting rights
to territories that have a fraction of the population of a
congressional district, one territory that has the population roughly
of Butler County, Pennsylvania, one of my constituencies; one that has
roughly the population of Mercer County, Pennsylvania. And to my good
friend from Samoa, and he is a good friend, he represents a
constituency with roughly the population of Mill Creek Township in Erie
County, Pennsylvania, which I represent. And yet he would be given full
voting rights within the Committee of the Whole. That is an outrage.
Democrats once stood for one man, one vote. Today on the floor of the
House, they stand for one Samoan, 10 votes.
Vote this down.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 1
minute to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), our
Democratic leader.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I don't know whether the gentleman who just
spoke understands the pain that he inflicts, understands the lack of
respect that he shows, understands the denial of democracy that he
reflects.
I tell the gentleman that my friend who sits behind you, four aisles
back, represents seven times as many people as you and I represent,
seven times as many people, who, if they move from the island of Puerto
Rico to the State of Maryland, the State of Pennsylvania, have full
voting rights. But he inflicts on the gentleman from American Samoa and
those Samoans who have fought for this country and died and are serving
today who have no vote. And for you on your side to represent that this
is a power grab, in my opinion, is absolutely unconscionable, in your
words, because it is so inaccurate.
Why did the court of appeals rule this to be constitutional? Because
it does not diminish any one of the 435 Members in this body. Why?
Because this is symbolism. This is symbolic. The Delegates know it. The
Delegates know that this is not full voting rights for them or for the
people they represent. But it is an opportunity for them to participate
and to reference on the board in the Committee of the Whole their vote,
their opinion.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOYER. I would be glad to yield to my friend.
Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
And I just want to say that I do have the utmost respect for my good
friend from Pennsylvania, and I am really saddened this day to hear
that the small population of the district that I represent doesn't mean
anything to my distinguished colleague who had made the statement,
alluding to the fact that there are not very many Samoans living in
this great Nation of ours. I really am saddened by that notion.
Mr. HOYER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentlemen of
the House, what we are doing here is we are saying to five people, and
I want to say you saw the pain of the representative of the District of
Columbia who absolutely ought to have a full vote in this House. I hope
that we will address that shortly.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOYER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding, my friend
and classmate. We came together in 1981. I came a little before he did
because he came in a special election, Mr. Speaker. He knows that I
have the highest regard for him. We have worked very closely in a
bipartisan way on a number of issues, and one of the things I was most
proud of over the past several years was that my friend carried in his
breast pocket quotes of mine on things that I said what we were in the
minority about, the need for greater deliberation.
We considered, as my friend knows, a very noncontroversial issue,
that being the extension of suspension days from Monday and Tuesday to
Wednesday. We did that 3 years ago, a little over 3 years ago, and it
had very little controversy to it. We began a very deliberative
process. We had a hearing on that. Again, there wasn't much
controversy.
And now I am going to take this opportunity to extend the quote of my
friend, if he will indulge me, when he, on June 23 of 2003, at our
Rules hearing on this said: ``The lack of free and fair debate on such
important matters is an embarrassment to the Members who are privileged
to serve. It demeans the House, it cheats the American people, and it
offends our democratic traditions. Unfortunately, tactics designed to
shut down debate are not an aberration; they are becoming the norm.''
And, Mr. Speaker, all I would say to my friend is that the sort of
unpleasant debate that we are witnessing right now underscores the fact
that moving through the procedure that we have to the House floor
without a single committee hearing, without the input of scholars who
might talk about the impact on this institution, on the American
people, on the rights of American citizens, is something that we should
consider. And that is the concern that we have. And I believe what we
should do is withdraw this measure from the floor and go through
regular order.
I simply offered, as the ranking minority member now of the
committee, an amendment in the rule that would simply say that if I
could offer, as the ranking member, the committee of jurisdiction, a
germane amendment, I would like to have a chance to do that. And I was
voted down in that quest.
Let us do proceed with what the gentleman has argued passionately
for. He and I are both institutionalists, Mr. Speaker. Let us do allow
the kind of deliberation that is essential to consideration of such an
important issue.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOYER. I yield to my friend.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I just want to clarify for the record that
the Rules Committee did offer the Republicans a substitute, which they
declined. The amendment that was brought before the Rules Committee was
made in order.
And I also would like to say, Mr. Speaker, in response to my friend,
Mr. English, that there are 58 million Americans who pay no income tax
in this country, just payroll tax. I hope the gentleman is not
suggesting that those people shouldn't have a right to vote.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, and we are running out of
time, I want to say that when I yielded, I was talking about symbolism.
All of us believe that symbolism is very important. Our flag is a great
symbol. Samoans have died for that flag. Residents of the District of
Columbia have died for that flag. Residents of the Virgin Islands have
died for that flag. Residents of Guam have died for that flag. And
many, many residents of Puerto Rico have died for that flag.
Yes, this is symbolic, which is why the courts said it was
appropriate, because it does not constitutionally diminish the vote of
any one of the 435 Members of this body one iota. Why? Because if their
votes make a difference, we automatically have a vote of the 435 of us.
That is why the courts said this is absolutely constitutional.
It is not enough, what we do today. But it would be tragic if we do
not do at least this basic step to recognize the inclusion of those who
serve with us, who can speak with us, who can vote in committee across
the street or in this building, but who have had their vote in the
Committee of the Whole taken away from them when the Republicans took
power in 1995.
[[Page H897]]
{time} 1115
Let us restore that vote today. Vote for this rule, which is a fair
rule. And I say to my friend who quoted my comments, you were accorded
a right to a substitute. You chose not to take it. You were accorded
the right to an amendment. You now want to withdraw that. I will tell
you that, on our side, if you want to withdraw that amendment by
unanimous consent, we will not object. But my understanding is you
don't want to make that request.
Mr. DREIER. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HOYER. We have given you that amendment.
My time is up. The last time you asked me to yield, you gave a
speech. And that is fine, but you are going to do it on your time.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to
simply say to my friend that we are clearly in a position where
upstairs we had said that we did not believe we should amend a bad
bill. But at the same time, I simply made the request for, as the
ranking minority member, the right to have a germane amendment if we so
chose. And that was, in fact, denied us on a party-line vote that we
had in the House.
Mr. Speaker, at this time I am very happy to yield a minute to my
good friend from Allentown, Pennsylvania (Mr. Dent).
Mr. DENT. Mr. Speaker, I, too, today rise in opposition to this rule
and the underlying legislation. In this bill, the Delegates and the
Resident Commissioner will be allowed to vote on proceedings in the
Committee of the Whole; but if their vote is decisive, then there must
be a revote in the full House without the participation of these
Delegates. In other words, the bill says that your vote counts except
when it doesn't count. And when it really, really counts, that is when
it will make a difference in the outcome of the proceedings, it turns
out that your vote doesn't count at all.
This kind of absurdity might be appropriate in the drama of Beckett
or Ionesco, but it has no place in the making of American law.
And I do want to address the issue, too. In the last session I
supported the Tom Davis-Holmes Norton bill to help deal with the issue
of the District of Columbia's voting rights. I agree with that. I
support that legislation, and we should take up that legislation. We
shouldn't do it through this rule.
Also, with respect to self-determination in Puerto Rico, we have been
supportive of Mr. Fortuno and his effort to allow for self-
determination of the island where people have a choice to make:
independence, territorial status, or statehood. Let that process take
its course. This is not the way to go. I oppose the rule and the
underlying legislation.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise
and extend her remarks.)
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Might I say, Mr. Speaker, it is a joy to
see you in the chair, and I thank the member of the majority Rules
Committee and the Rules Committee and a number of my colleagues.
And might I just remind my colleagues that we had some 10 years for
the Members on the other side of the aisle to make good on a
constitutional promise.
It should be noted that this very rule and its format has been
affirmed on constitutional grounds. It was utilized by majority vote in
the 103th Congress without one incident except three revotes.
The idea and concept is to again inform America that we believe in
one vote, one person. I know historically the complete insult to being
considered less than one vote. Slaves were characterized historically
as less than one person. And so this particular legislation is a making
of the whole of individuals who pay taxes, Federal taxes, Social
Security, Medicare taxes, and individuals who we know, Mr. Speaker,
have been on the front lines of Iraq, Afghanistan, and every single
war.
And so to the American Samoa, to the District of Columbia, to the
Virgin Islands, and to the District of Columbia along with Puerto Rico
and the Commissioner, the argument for self-rule or however Puerto Rico
will ultimately be designed is not the argument here today. The
argument here today is to allow the constituents, some 4.4 million,
represented by Commissioners and Delegates to have a constitutional
right to vote. There is no way that this Congress, this Democratic
Congress under the leadership of Speaker Pelosi and the leadership
team, can reject the right for Americans to vote or those who are in
many instances citizens.
And so, Mr. Speaker, I support the rule and the underlying bill, and
would ask us to uphold the Constitution by voting today to allow those
who have the right to vote to express their vote.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 78, which would amend
the rules of the House of Representatives to permit Delegates from the
District of Columbia, Guam, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and the
Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico to cast votes in the Committee of
the Whole House on the State of the Union.
I support H.R. 78 because restoring to the Delegates and the Resident
Commissioner the right to vote in the Committee of the Whole is an act
of simple justice long overdue. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 78 merely
restores the practice that prevailed in this House during the 103rd
Congress. When the Republicans won control of this chamber in 1994, one
of their first acts was to strip elected Delegates and the Resident
Commissioner of Puerto Rico of their right to vote in the Committee of
the Whole.
Let me point out at the outset, Mr. Speaker, that the rule we seek to
restore today was rescinded by the Republican controlled 104th
Congress, and prohibited by each succeeding Congress through the 110th
not because the rule is unconstitutional or illegal but because for
apparently partisan reasons. Four of the five Members directly affected
by the rule are members of the Democratic Caucus.
But the fact is, Mr. Speaker, the authority of this House to confer
voting rights in the Committee of the Whole upon elected Delegates and
the Resident Commissioner of Puerto has been squarely addressed and
upheld by the Federal courts.
When the House adopted a similar rule during the 103d Congress,
Republican opponents immediately brought action in federal court
challenging the constitutionality of the rule on the ground that it
vested legislative power in persons who were not elected to represent
citizens of any of the several States. In March 1993, the United States
District Court for the District of Columbia upheld the rules change on
the ground that the Delegate votes was structured so that Delegate
votes in the Committee of the Whole were symbolic in nature and thus
did not affect the final ultimate outcome of any vote. Michaels v.
Anderson, 817 F. Supp. 126 (D.D.C. 1993), aff'd, 109 F.3d 623 (1994).
For this reason, the court held that the rule did not
unconstitutionally confer legislative power upon Delegates.
In affirming the district court, the Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia held that the additional authority conferred on
Delegates by the rule change was ``largely symbolic'' and ``not
significantly greater than that which they enjoy serving and voting on
the standing committees.'' Id. Nor was the court persuaded by the
argument raised by opponents below that the rule change had the
symbolic effect of granting Delegates higher status and greater
prestige in their home districts. In rejecting the claim, the court
noted that because of the savings clause contained in the rule, the
claimed harm was ``unproven, remote, and speculative'' and of no
unconstitutional moment. Simply put, the court held that the rule ``was
not unconstitutional as the delegation of an improper exercise of
legislative power.''
Moreover, Mr. Speaker, the Supreme Court has long held and it is now
settled that the Congress has broad authority to take action with
respect to the territories and the District of Columbia. See Sere &
Laralde v. Pilot, 10 U.S. 332, 336-37 (1810); Murphy v. Ramsey, 114
U.S. 15, 44 (1885); Binns v. U.S., 194 U.S. 486 (1885).
Mr. Speaker, our Nation's Capital of the District of Columbia, the
United States territories of Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, the
Virgin Islands, and the Northern Mariana Islands, all play an important
role in this great Nation. They serve in our military. They are
fighting for us right now in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are making and
have made the ultimate sacrifice to protect and defend this Nation.
Mr. Speaker, more than 30,000 residents of Guam are on active duty in
the Armed Forces of the United States. That is nearly 20 percent of the
population of the territory. No other congressional district or State
comes close to matching this measure of devotion. Approximately 2,500
soldiers from the District of Columbia and the territories are
currently serving in Iraq and Afghanistan today. And American Samoa has
the highest per capita rate of any State or territory in the Iraq war.
The Iraq war
[[Page H898]]
death rate per 1 million people in the population is almost as high for
American Samoa as for the 10 highest States combined.
Sadly also, Mr. Speaker, the Nation lost 19 brave soldiers this past
Saturday when the helicopter they were riding was shot down by
insurgents. Two of the heroes who made this supreme sacrifice for their
country were residents of the Virgin Islands.
Mr. Speaker, if a person can be called upon to pay Federal taxes and
serve in the Armed Forces of the United States, then he or she should
at least have the opportunity to vote for a Representative who could at
least cast a symbolic vote in this Chamber on critical matters facing
our Nation--issues like war and peace, equality and justice.
Mr. Speaker, taxation without representation is tyranny. In the
aggregate, nearly 5 million persons residing in the District of
Columbia, Guam, the Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and Puerto Rico are
wrongly, and I say unconscionably, being denied a vote--and therefore
denied a voice--in the most important legislative body in the world and
making a mockery of our commitment to democracy and equal justice.
As a supporter of freedom, democracy, and equality, I believe that it
is long overdue for the citizens of the District of Columbia to have a
Representative in Congress who can vote on the vital legislation
considered in this body.
It is wrong, Mr. Speaker, that the citizens of the District of
Columbia, who after all pay taxes to the United States, serve in the
Armed Forces, and are subject to the laws and jurisdiction of the
United States, are denied a vote in the body that imposes those taxes,
raises and maintains the Armed Forces, and makes the laws that each of
us must obey.
License plates in the District of Columbia remind us of their ongoing
struggle for a proper voice in this Federal Government, reading:
``Taxation without representation.'' The people in Boston felt so
strongly about this in 1775 that they rebelled in Boston Harbor,
launching the ``Boston Tea Party.''
This principle is no less vital today. We must not deny the
territories of Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, the Virgin Islands,
and the Northern Mariana Islands the right to have a vote in Congress.
Doing so denies their important relationships with our Nation and
contributions to our economy.
Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. Hoyer, for
introducing H. Res. 78, which honors and vindicates the residents of
the District of Columbia and the territories. Not only do we appreciate
their military service and tax receipts, we value their views and
opinion in the halls of Congress.
I urge my colleagues to support H. Res. 78. But let us not stop
there. I hope all Members will support H.R. 328, the D.C. Fair and
Equal Voting Rights Act, which will give full voting rights in the
House to the nearly 600,000 citizens of the District of Columbia.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to a
former member of the Rules Committee, we miss him greatly upstairs, our
good friend from Marietta, Georgia, Dr. Gingrey.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Speaker, I thank my former chairman on the Rules
Committee for the time. And I rise in opposition to this rule and the
underlying resolution, with some degree of sadness, because I certainly
have great, great respect for the representatives of the territories
and the District of Columbia. They are sitting here on the floor and
speaking, and they are great Members. But I have to oppose this because
I think that indeed, Mr. Speaker, it will be ruled unconstitutional in
the final analysis.
And I know that the Democratic majority in the first 2 weeks, in the
100 hours, with the Six for '06 legislative agenda, the bumper sticker
issues that were poll-tested; if you took an issue like this and you
said to the American people, We are about to grant voting rights to the
members from the territories that do not pay Federal income taxes, and
these votes can raise your taxes, and they don't pay Federal income
taxes, I think that the poll on that would be at least 90 percent in
opposition. So if you are going to do things on a poll-driven agenda,
you would not be doing this.
I think that it may end up being a moot point, Mr. Speaker, because
voting in the Committee of the Whole, giving the Members that right, it
may never occur. It may be a moot point, because with these closed
rules and no regular order, there may never be any votes in the
Committee of the Whole.
So I regrettably rise to oppose this. I think it is absolutely wrong.
But I have great respect for my colleagues from the territories and the
District of Columbia.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I want to ask unanimous consent to have
inserted in the Record a letter that was sent to the Rules Committee
signed by Mr. Faleomavaega, Mr. Fortuno, Ms. Eleanor Holmes Norton,
Mrs. Christensen, and Ms. Bordallo in support of the underlying bill.
And let me remind my colleague from Georgia, this is not a closed
rule. If he wants a closed rule, he has the right to amend it.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Massachusetts?
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, I
just wanted to appreciate the gentleman for placing items in the
Record. I would point out that the majority leader has stated that the
Republicans have described this as a power grab. In fact, the New York
Times, the Chicago Tribune, The Washington Post, and USA Today describe
it as a power grab.
Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reservation.
Mr. McGOVERN. What is the gentleman's objection?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman reserved the right to object
and has now withdrawn his reservation.
Without objection, the item will be placed in the Record.
There was no objection.
Congress of the United States
Washington, DC, January 22, 2007.
Hon. Louise McIntosh Slaughter,
Chairwoman, Committee on Rules, Washington, DC.
Hon. David Dreier,
Ranking Republican Member, Committee on Rules, Washington,
DC.
Dear Chairwoman Slaughter and Ranking Member Dreier: We
write to respectfully request your support for H. Res. 78,
which has been introduced by our colleague from Maryland and
the distinguished Majority Leader, the Hon. Steny Hoyer, to
amend the Rules of the House of Representatives to afford us
the opportunity to cast votes in the Committee of the Whole
House on the state of the Union. We represent the District of
Columbia, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam and the U.S.
Virgin Islands, and this rules change will have symbolic
importance for us as Delegates and for our constituents.
We recognize this proposal as consistent with the provision
that was provided for this same purpose within the Rules of
the House of Representatives for the 103rd Congress. We
further recognize this proposal to be within the
Constitutionally-tested limits. H. Res. 78 would grant us
meaningful participation in the legislative process along
with our participation in standing committees. We hope that
you will support H. Res. 78 and that you will favorably
report this amendment to the Rules of the House of
Representatives for the House to consider. Thank you for your
consideration of our views.
Sincerely,
Eni F.H. Faleomavaega,
Member of Congress.
Eleanor Holmes Norton,
Member of Congress.
Luis G. Fortuno,
Member of Congress.
Donna M. Christensen,
Member of Congress.
Madeleine Z. Bordallo,
Member of Congress.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire of the Chair how much time is
remaining on both sides.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California has 11\1/2\
minutes; the gentleman from Massachusetts has 3 minutes.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I will let the gentleman proceed.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, at this point, I am very, very pleased to
yield 3 minutes to the distinguished Resident Commissioner from Puerto
Rico, our good friend Mr. Fortuno.
(Mr. FORTUNO asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. FORTUNO. Mr. Speaker, as the only Republican afforded a vote by
House Resolution 78, I rise to thank my distinguished colleague from
Maryland, Majority Leader Hoyer, for introducing this resolution
granting the five representatives of the nonstate areas of our Nation
voting representation in the Committee of the Whole, but, perhaps even
more importantly, for opening up the discussion of the status of the
U.S. possessions and territories. That is what is going on here today.
I also rise to urge my colleagues who can exercise their right to
vote on this amendment to the rules to give the representatives in the
House from the District of Columbia, Virgin Islands, American Samoa,
Guam, and Puerto
[[Page H899]]
Rico the only meaningful representation we can provide our constituents
in the House of Representatives. However, I do this with some
reluctance since I share some legal concerns as well as fervor, because
this proposed representation will be so limited: A vote on amendments
to bills in the Committee of the Whole with a revote in the event that
our votes become decisive.
What the House really needs to do for the almost 4 million U.S.
citizens that I represent before the Senate, the executive branch, as
well as this House is to authorize a process of self-determination for
Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico has been a U.S. territory since 1898, and we
still remain disenfranchised. Puerto Rican Americans have been citizens
since 1917, and we have served with distinction and honor in our Armed
Forces and have defended our Nation in every battlefield around the
world. Actually, as we speak, we have lost 54 of our constituents so
far in the gulf war on terrorism.
What my constituents really deserve is the opportunity to seek equal
representation and equal responsibilities in the Federal system or,
alternatively, the freedom of a sovereign nation, even though the
latter option has very little support among my constituents.
I am pleased that 110 of my colleagues in the last Congress agreed,
including leaders on both sides of the aisle, such as the distinguished
majority leader, Mr. Hoyer, to cosponsor the Puerto Rico Democracy Act.
I am also heartened that the chairman of the committee of jurisdiction,
the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) and the ranking minority
member, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) have indicated that
legislation for this purpose is a priority this year.
The question now, however, is whether to give all the territories and
the District of Columbia as much representation for our constituents
that my four nonstate colleagues and I can constitutionally provide: A
vote in the Committee of the Whole that will not be decisive on the
amendments. Together, the five of us represent 4.9 million U.S.
citizens, Americans who fight and die for the United States every
single day. I respectfully request that they deserve this
representation, limited as it may be, until our status situation is
fully addressed, as I hope it will be fully addressed in the near
future.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I would inquire of the gentleman from
Massachusetts how many speakers he has remaining.
Mr. McGOVERN. I am it.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, then I will yield myself the balance of the
time.
Mr. Speaker, this has been a very, very sad debate. It has been a sad
debate because of the lack of deliberation and the lack of the
consideration.
The issue is, at best, controversial. I listened to the remarks of my
very good friend, who, as I just told her, spends more time
representing me now that we have this 5-day workweek than I do myself
as a Californian because we spend so much time in the District of
Columbia. Her remarks go right to the point of concern that we have
raised about this process and why we are where we are at this juncture.
As I look at the other Delegates, and we have just heard from the
Resident Commissioner, we obviously have the utmost respect for them,
their service, and the great representation that they provide. And,
over and above that, the issue that everyone has mentioned since the
focal point of the State of the Union address delivered here by the
President last night is that, as we prosecute this global war on
terror, it is essential that we respect and revere every single life
that has been lost in that struggle. And we know that there are many
people who have come from the District of Columbia and from the other
territories who have paid the ultimate price, and we are in debt to
them for that.
But, Mr. Speaker, the thing that is very troubling to me is that we
are at this point, without having ever given any kind of committee
hearing, without any discussion or debate, and with a process upstairs
that I think my colleagues on the other side of the aisle will
acknowledge was really a great travesty and an injustice.
I want to express my appreciation to Mr. McGovern. Mr. Speaker, Mr.
McGovern, when we were considering this rule upstairs, did make a good-
faith effort in trying to offer a proposed compromise to this rule, and
unfortunately he was denied the chance to do that.
{time} 1130
As we look at the issue before us, many of us are troubled about the
constitutionality of this, and our friends have basically just on the
other side of the aisle discussed the court decision on this issue, Mr.
Speaker, by saying what was stated by the circuit court. They used the
word ``meaningless'' to describe this vote, and it was true, as I said,
legerdemain, legislative sleight of hand, that they were able to at
this juncture move through those two courts as they did with this
measure.
But, Mr. Speaker, my plea to my very good friends and colleagues in
the majority is simply let us go through the process of deliberation.
Let us go through committee hearings. Let us hear from those very
thoughtful scholars who so often testified before the Rules Committee
in the past on a wide range of issues that we considered, and then
after we go through that deliberative process, this process of
democracy which we all hold near and dear, then I believe we could have
a proposal that we could bring to the floor, if possible, to consider
this measure.
Mr. Speaker, as I said, I am very, very, very disappointed at the way
this whole issue has been handled, and frankly, as my friend from
Marietta said earlier, all of the closed rules that we have had on
these measures that were brought before us, we were told that when we
got beyond the Six for 2006, that things were going to be much
different.
A professor at my alma mater, Claremont McKenna College, wrote in the
Orange County Register yesterday that that is like saying, I will
respect you in the morning.
Mr. Speaker, we have seen a continuation of a clamp-down of
deliberative democracy, and what we are faced with here at this moment,
offer of a substitute aside, has denied the deliberation that this very
important issue deserves.
So, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule, and if by
chance the rule does pass, I urge strong opposition to the underlying
resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time.
Mr. Speaker, let me restate what I said earlier: This rule allows for
consideration of the only amendment offered in the Rules Committee
yesterday. We also offered the minority the opportunity for a
substitute, which they declined. If this bill is so awful, they could
have introduced a substitute to null and void it. Indeed, the amendment
that is made in order practically null and voids this entire bill. As
someone who has been around for a few years, I do not think I have ever
heard so many complaints about a rule that makes in order every single
amendment offered in the Rules Committee.
But, Mr. Speaker, let me say, the old days are over. I could stand on
this floor all day and cite a list of abuses by the former majority.
Instead, let me focus on how this Democratic majority has chosen to
operate.
For the last few weeks, we have heard complaint after complaint that
the Republicans were not allowed to offer amendments on our Six for '06
agenda. Now the gentleman from California and others are complaining
that we are allowing a Republican amendment. I have got a case of
whiplash.
Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that by allowing the other side of the aisle
to offer amendments and offer a substitute, we have messed up their
talking points.
Mr. Kirk from Illinois came before the Rules Committee with a
thoughtful amendment, offered in good faith. I happened to disagree
very strongly with the substance of his amendment, but I support his
right to offer it, debate it and get an up-or-down vote in this House.
Indeed, I would urge my colleagues to go to the Rules Committee and to
read the testimony of Mr. Kirk and also the statements by members of
the Rules Committee, Republican members, who urged that this amendment
be made in order. This was
[[Page H900]]
a hearing, I would remind my colleagues, that happened in the light of
day, not in the middle of the night.
Let me also remind my colleague there is no obligation for the
gentleman from Illinois or anybody else to offer the amendment if they
choose not to. It is up to them. Indeed, they could offer an amendment
to strike this amendment from the rule if they want and have a closed
rule, which they have become accustomed to under their leadership.
What we are allowing, Mr. Speaker, is for the Delegates and the
Resident Commissioner to the House of Representatives to have a
symbolic vote that will not count if they are the deciding margin of
victory or defeat of any amendment. We are allowing for the possible
consideration of an amendment. If the sponsor Member decides to offer
the amendment to this resolution, he can offer it, or his designee.
Finally, we are protecting that amendment from all points of order.
Let me close, Mr. Speaker, by addressing the rank-and-file Members on
the Republican side. We believe that you have a right to be heard. If
you come before the Rules Committee with thoughtful amendments, we will
give you every possible consideration. We will not be perfect. We will
do some things that you will not like, but the distinguished chairwoman
of the Rules Committee Ms. Slaughter and all of us on this side of the
aisle have made it very clear that we will preside over a more open,
democratic process than was the norm for the past 12 years.
The rule before us is a product of that commitment, and indeed, it
responds to the Member who came before the Rules Committee to offer an
amendment. I think that is good form.
Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the
previous question and vote ``yes'' on the rule.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the
previous question on the resolution.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous
question.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes
the minimum time for electronic voting, if ordered, on the question of
adoption of the resolution.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 229,
nays 191, not voting 14, as follows:
[Roll No. 51]
YEAS--229
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castor
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Dreier
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Filner
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NAYS--191
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Taylor
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--14
Buyer
Castle
Cubin
Everett
Fattah
Frank (MA)
Jindal
Johnson (IL)
Lowey
Lucas
Norwood
Pickering
Radanovich
Rohrabacher
{time} 1204
Messrs. ALEXANDER, RAMSTAD and KELLER of Florida changed their vote
from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Ms. DeGETTE and Mr. GORDON of Tennessee changed their vote from
``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the previous question was ordered.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I move to reconsider the vote on the
previous question.
Motion to Table Offered by Mr. Mc Govern
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I move to table the motion to reconsider.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to table.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, this 5-
minute vote on the motion to table will be followed by a 5-minute vote
on adoption of the resolution, if ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 229,
noes 189, not voting 16, as follows:
[[Page H901]]
[Roll No. 52]
AYES--229
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castor
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Filner
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NOES--189
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Fallin
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--16
Buyer
Cannon
Castle
Cubin
Everett
Fattah
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Jindal
Johnson (IL)
Lowey
Lucas
Norwood
Pickering
Radanovich
Rohrabacher
{time} 1215
So the motion to table was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Recorded Vote
Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 228,
noes 188, not voting 18, as follows:
[Roll No. 53]
AYES--228
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd (FL)
Boyda (KS)
Brady (PA)
Braley (IA)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carson
Castor
Chandler
Clarke
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Cohen
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Lincoln
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Donnelly
Doyle
Edwards
Ellison
Ellsworth
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Filner
Giffords
Gillibrand
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Hare
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hirono
Hodes
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (GA)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kirk
Klein (FL)
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Lynch
Mahoney (FL)
Maloney (NY)
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNerney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy, Patrick
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Perlmutter
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Rodriguez
Ross
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sestak
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shuler
Sires
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Space
Spratt
Stark
Stupak
Sutton
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walz (MN)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Welch (VT)
Wexler
Wilson (OH)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Yarmuth
NOES--188
Aderholt
Akin
Bachmann
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Calvert
Camp (MI)
Campbell (CA)
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Chabot
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, David
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Fallin
Ferguson
Flake
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Hall (TX)
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hulshof
Hunter
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jordan
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kline (MN)
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Lamborn
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
[[Page H902]]
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCarthy (CA)
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris Rodgers
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy, Tim
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Nunes
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Sali
Saxton
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shays
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Terry
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walberg
Walden (OR)
Walsh (NY)
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NOT VOTING--18
Alexander
Buyer
Castle
Cubin
Everett
Fattah
Feeney
Frank (MA)
Jindal
Johnson (IL)
Lowey
Lucas
Norwood
Ortiz
Pickering
Radanovich
Rohrabacher
Rothman
{time} 1226
So the resolution was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________