[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 145 (1999), Part 1]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 1072]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



 ON ENTERING A LETTER TO THE HONORABLE DAVID DREIER ABOUT THE DELEGATE 
                                  VOTE

                                 ______
                                 

                       HON. ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON

                      of the district of columbia

                    in the house of representatives

                       Tuesday, January 19, 1999

  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to correct an erroneous 
statement by my good friend and colleague from California, concerning 
the constitutionality of the Delegate vote in the Committee of the 
Whole. On January 6, 1999, the gentleman from California, Mr. Dreier, 
made the remark concerning the Delegate vote in response to my 
statement on withdrawal of my right to vote in the Committee of the 
Whole, despite the fact that D.C. residents alone among American 
citizens pay federal income taxes while lacking full representation in 
the Congress. He said that a federal court had settled the 
constitutionality of the Delegate vote against the District. As my 
letter points out, the opposite is in fact the case. Both the District 
Court and the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia have ruled 
that the Delegate vote is constitutional. The text of the letter 
follows:

                                                  January 7, 1999.
     Hon. David Dreier
     Member, U.S. House of Representatives, Cannon H.O.B., 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Dave: I am writing to point out an error in your 
     statement on the House Floor, as recorded in today's 
     Congressional Record that ``in 1993 a Federal judge found a 
     House rule change to allow Delegate voting in the Committee 
     of the Whole could be unconstitutional, so that clearly was 
     addressed at that time.'' I did not realize that you were 
     unaware that the opposite is the case. Both the U.S. District 
     Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of 
     Columbia found that Delegate voting is constitutional. In 
     Michel v. Anderson, 817 F.Supp. 126 (D.D.C. 1993), and 
     subsequently on appeal in Michel v. Anderson, 14 F.3d 623 
     (D.C.Cir. 1994) the courts that heard the case found that the 
     House is the sole arbiter of its own rules and that it could 
     amend its rules to allow Delegate voting. I assure you that I 
     would have never have been so reckless as to take to the 
     floor and argue for something already declared 
     unconstitutional by the courts.
       Delegate voting was originally applicable to all Delegates 
     and included jurisdictions whose residents do not pay federal 
     income taxes. After the vote was withdrawn, several Members, 
     including some on your side, indicated they would support the 
     vote in the Committee of the Whole for District residents 
     because of our federal income taxpaying status. Given the 
     fact that there must be a revote if the Delegate vote proves 
     decisive in the Committee of the Whole, it seems needlessly 
     punitive for a Congress that regards taxes as a priority, to 
     deny this vote, harmless to your side, to Americans who are 
     third per capita in federal income taxes. If, as I believe, 
     the constitutional matter has been cleared up, I hope that 
     you will have occasion to reconsider the Committee of the 
     Whole vote for the District residents.
       Best personal regards.
           Sincerely,
                                            Eleanor Holmes Norton.

     

                          ____________________