[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.

                          ____________________