[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 2]
[House]
[Pages 2140-2151]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




PERMITTING DELEGATES AND THE RESIDENT COMMISSIONER TO CAST VOTES IN THE 
                         COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 
86, I call up 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, and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
  Mr. McHENRY. Madam Speaker, I demand the question of consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Tauscher). The gentleman from North 
Carolina demands the question of consideration. The question is: Will 
the House consider the resolution?
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. McHENRY. Madam Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 224, 
noes 186, not voting 24, as follows:

[[Page 2141]]



                             [Roll No. 56]

                               AYES--224

     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boyd (FL)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     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)
     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
     Lowey
     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

                               NOES--186

     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
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     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
     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)
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Latham
     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
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Petri
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rohrabacher
     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
     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--24

     Abercrombie
     Boucher
     Boyda (KS)
     Buyer
     Carson
     Cubin
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Everett
     Fattah
     Frank (MA)
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jordan
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaTourette
     Lucas
     Musgrave
     Norwood
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Radanovich
     Rogers (MI)
     Tancredo

                              {time}  1329

  Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California changed her vote from ``no'' to 
``aye.''
  So the question of consideration was decided in the affirmative.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated against:
  Mr. JORDAN of Ohio. Madam Speaker, I was absent from the House floor 
during today's rollcall vote on considering House Resolution 78.
  Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will re-report the title.
  The Clerk read the title of the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 86, the 
resolution is considered read.
  The text of the resolution is as follows:

                               H. Res. 78

       Resolved,

     SECTION 1. VOTING BY DELEGATES AND RESIDENT COMMISSIONER IN 
                   COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE.

       (a) Permitting Votes To Be Cast.--Clause 3(a) of rule III 
     of the Rules of the House of Representatives is amended to 
     read as follows:
       ``3. (a) In a Committee of the Whole House on the state of 
     the Union, each Delegate and the Resident Commissioner shall 
     possess the same powers and privileges as Members of the 
     House. Each Delegate and the Resident Commissioner shall be 
     elected to serve on standing committees in the same manner as 
     Members of the House and shall possess in such committees the 
     same powers and privileges as the other members of the 
     committee.''.
       (b) Appointment of Chair.--The first sentence of clause 1 
     of rule XVIII of the Rules of the House of Representatives is 
     amended by striking ``a Chairman'' and inserting ``a Member, 
     Delegate, or the Resident Commissioner as Chairman''.
       (c) Repeating of Certain Votes.--Clause 6 of rule XVIII of 
     the Rules of the House of Representatives is amended by 
     adding at the end the following new paragraph:
       ``(h) Whenever a recorded vote on any question has been 
     decided by a margin within which the votes cast by the 
     Delegates and the Resident Commissioner have been decisive, 
     the Committee of the Whole shall rise and the Speaker shall 
     put such question de novo without intervening motion. Upon 
     the announcement of the vote on that question, the Committee 
     of the Whole shall resume its sitting without intervening 
     motion.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. After 1 hour of debate on the resolution, it 
shall be in order to consider the amendment printed in House Report 
110-3, if offered by the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk), or his 
designee, which shall be considered read, and shall be debatable for 20 
minutes, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an 
opponent.
  The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Dreier) each will control 30 minutes of debate on the 
resolution.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I am very proud to be bringing this bill to the House 
floor today. This minor change in House rules represents a major step 
forward for the nearly 5 million Americans whose voice is not currently 
represented on the floor of this House. That is right, Madam Speaker, 5 
million Americans go unrepresented on the floor of the people's House.
  This is one of the few things we can do for the American body politic 
that is not only the right thing to do, it is easy to do as well.
  One of the most simple, yet eloquent and powerful statements in 
support of what we will do today was made by one of our former 
colleagues several years ago. Ben Blaz served in this House for 8 years 
as the delegate from Guam in the mid-1980s and early 1990s.

[[Page 2142]]



                              {time}  1330

  Delegate Blaz is a man of unquestioned patriotism and uncommon valor. 
He retired from the Marine Corps with the rank of brigadier general, 
and during his time in the corps he was awarded the Legion of Merit, a 
Bronze Star with Combat V and the Vietnam Cross of Gallantry.
  I give you a little background on the former Delegate so that our 
colleagues can have some context when I tell you what General Blaz had 
to say at one time on this House floor. What the general said about his 
status in the House and the faith of his fellow Guamanians was this: 
``We are equal in war, but not in peace.''
  So it is today, Madam Speaker. Over the past several months, and as 
recently as this week, in the deserts of Iraq and Afghanistan, young 
Americans from Guam, American Samoa, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands 
and Washington, D.C. have fought and died in defense of their country 
and in service to the Nation they love. In the helicopter that crashed 
last week, two from the Virgin Islands were on that helicopter and lost 
their lives.
  And yet our colleagues, Mr. Fortuno from Puerto Rico, Dr. Christensen 
from the Virgin Islands, Mr. Faleomavaega from American Samoa, Ms. 
Bordallo from Guam and Ms. Norton, from Washington, D.C., have no right 
to cast a vote and be a voice for their constituents and our fellow 
Americans out on the battlefield.
  But, you know, Madam Speaker, I may be overstating the importance of 
this modest rules change. It is, after all, more symbolism than 
substance. Yes, our colleagues who I just mentioned will finally be 
able to cast a vote on the House floor, but, and this should be the 
clincher for my Republican friends who generally prefer to see 
democracy squelched in the people's House, if a vote cast by a Delegate 
or the Resident Commissioner or by them collectively amounts to the 
deciding votes on a question before the House, then the vote is retaken 
without permitting them to participate.
  So who could possibly be opposed to giving our colleagues, arguably 
some of the most gifted and thoughtful legislators in this Chamber, the 
right to cast a nondecisive vote on the House floor? I mean, that 
really should be done.
  Let me close for now by doing something I don't often do here, and 
that is to quote the current President of the United States. Last 
night, Madam Speaker, standing where you are, not 25 feet from where I 
stand today, the distinguished President of the United States, 
President Bush, said, ``This is a decent and honorable country.''
  What we are trying to do on the House floor today, colleagues, is the 
decent and honorable thing to do.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to House Resolution 
78, which will allow the Delegates and the Resident Commissioner to 
vote on the House floor.
  My colleagues who support this measure will talk about how the vote 
granted under this change in the House rules is merely symbolic and the 
votes cast don't count. But, Madam Speaker, that analysis says that the 
value of a vote is worth little more than its ability to be used in a 
press release or a letter to a constituent. I value my vote. I consider 
it to be an extraordinary honor to serve here, and I believe that the 
Delegates and the Resident Commissioners should and would desire to 
value their votes as well.
  Those who advocate granting the right in the Committee of the Whole 
have apparently forgotten the full name of that committee. Madam 
Speaker, we are in the House right now, but when we are in the 
Committee of the Whole, it is called the Committee of the Whole House 
on the state of the Union. I underscore the word ``Union.'' We need to 
remember that.
  The Union is made up of the several States, and only Representatives 
from those States may vote here on the House floor. That is what the 
U.S. Constitution says.
  Yes, the Committee of the Whole finds its roots in the British 
Parliament, but the modern House of Representatives and the 17th 
century British Parliament used the Committee of the Whole for two 
vastly different purposes.
  We use the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union for 
the purpose of allowing the House of Representatives to expedite the 
amendment process and to allow for a more free-flowing debate. We do 
not, and I underscore this, Madam Speaker, we do not use it to say that 
we are no longer the House of Representatives, and therefore allow us 
to close deliberations to emissaries of the Queen. That is not what 
going into the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the Union 
is about.
  Madam Speaker, my colleagues from the territories and the District of 
Columbia feel disenfranchised, and I understand why. They enjoy many of 
the benefits granted to the citizens of the several States. However, 
with the exception of the District of Columbia, their representatives 
are different. For instance, some pay income taxes differently; some 
not at all. Some are subject to the recently increased minimum wage; 
others are not subjected to the recently increased minimum wage.
  This change in the House rules is an end run around the United States 
Constitution. The court said so when it upheld the rule. Because the 
Constitution limits who can wield legislative power, in order to pass 
muster the rule had to make it appear that Delegates and Resident 
Commissioners had none.
  It is the ultimate in illusions, Madam Speaker. When your vote 
counts, it doesn't count; and when it doesn't count, it counts. I will 
say that again. When your vote counts, it doesn't count; and when it 
doesn't count, it counts. That is really what we are doing here.
  But we all know that Member voting behavior is far more subtle than 
my colleagues have led on. A recent academic study of voting patterns 
in the 103rd Congress showed that while the Delegate voting rule was in 
place, there was a drastic increase in the number of votes retaken in 
the House. While there were only three automatic revotes pursuant to 
the Delegate voting rule, there were a total of 75 votes taken in the 
Committee of the Whole that were retaken in the House of 
Representatives.
  Madam Speaker, on those revotes, the study shows there was an average 
of 31 switches per vote, and that out of the 435 Members, 403 switched 
their vote at least once, and that there was an average of 3.9 switches 
per Member. While the Democrats will argue that the Delegate voting 
rule had no effect on the switching, there is no doubt that the rule 
change drastically increased the number of revotes here in the House of 
Representatives.
  Madam Speaker, if we want to grant the Delegates the right to vote, 
we have, I clearly believe, two options: Either they need to start the 
path towards statehood, or we need to change the United States 
Constitution. I know full well, Madam Speaker, that both of them are 
long, difficult paths, but they are clearly preferable to this parlor 
trick of a rule.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased at this 
time to yield 4 minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Conyers), the distinguished Chair of the Judiciary Committee.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I want to thank the distinguished member 
of the Rules Committee, and I rise, Madam Speaker, in some shock about 
the strong opposition to this rule and the underlying bill.
  I had never thought that I would hear a reason to deny a Member of 
the House of Representatives a vote because of convenience, because of 
the number of revotes that have occurred and whether or not the 
switched votes that took place were because of whether Delegates were 
voting or not. This is an incredible kind of an argument.
  Today I commend the House leadership for bringing to the floor a 
small attempt to give our Delegates a voice in the House. This rule 
allows Congress

[[Page 2143]]

to be more inclusive and integrated as it pertains to our Delegates.
  Significantly, the rule brings the Congresswoman from the District of 
Columbia, Eleanor Holmes Norton, closer to a House vote for the 
District, a vote that was almost realized through bipartisan efforts in 
the 109th Congress.
  By giving our Delegates a vote in the Committee of the Whole, we 
provide these representatives with the opportunity to greater serve 
their constituents. I wonder what the rest of the citizens of this 
country would think would be wrong with such an opportunity for these 
citizens to have a voting Representative, as our citizens do?
  Delegates will now have a record that reflects their positions on the 
measures that come before the House, but ultimately Delegates will be 
more involved with the work of the Congress, which would, at least in 
small part, become their Congress.
  In recognizing our Delegates, Mr. Faleomavaega, Ms. Bordallo, Mrs. 
Christensen, Mr. Fortuno and Eleanor Holmes Norton, I point out that 
their contributions have been much like that of other representatives. 
Our Delegates already serve and vote on committee business, they serve 
in caucus and leadership positions, and they diligently represent the 
interests of their constituents. It is an honor to work alongside these 
Members. Why shouldn't we help them in this long, arduous struggle 
toward full membership in the House?
  For the Delegate from the District of Columbia, I believe that a vote 
in the Committee of the Whole is a step toward achieving a vote in the 
House. It is not the final step. Our work to bring democracy to the 
Nation's Capital will continue after today's, what I hope will be a 
success.
  For over 200 years, the District residents have been disenfranchised 
while assuming the responsibilities of United States citizenship. Like 
both State and territory residents, District residents serve in the 
Armed Forces and are currently represented in Iraq, Afghanistan and 
other countries in the world. Like State residents, but unlike 
territory residents, citizens of the District pay Federal taxes and 
vote in Presidential elections.
  However, the District is alone in that it is denied voting 
representation in the very entity that controls all aspects of the 
city's legislative, executive, and judicial functions--the Congress. No 
other entity--State or territory--lacks this much autonomy.
  I will continue to support Congresswoman Norton in her efforts to 
secure a vote for the District. I pledge to work towards such a vote in 
the coming weeks. This Congress is capable of a sound, bipartisan 
response and in fact proved as much last Congress. Let us now address 
the unfinished business of the 109th Congress and the unfinished 
business of our democracy.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Madam Speaker, the distinguished chairman of the Judiciary Committee 
knows I have the highest regard for him. I was simply quoting an 
academic study underscoring the fact that we very much need to have a 
greater opportunity for deliberation on this issue, rather than moving 
without any hearings whatsoever.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to a very hardworking member of the 
Rules Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions).
  Mr. SESSIONS. Madam Speaker, we are here today to consider the 
Democrat leadership's proposed change to the current House practices to 
provide Delegates from U.S. territories with representation without 
taxation.
  The Democrat leadership, in a political effort to pad votes, is 
willing to trample on the Constitution by allowing these Delegates to 
cast votes on amendments that could affect taxpayers across the United 
States of America without requiring that these residents pay taxes into 
the United States Treasury. According to a 2000 census, American Samoa 
had 60,000 residents, about one-tenth the size of an average 
congressional district. This too undermines the fundamental 
constitutional provision and principle of one man, one vote.
  I encourage all of my colleagues to oppose this bad policy and 
political effort by the Democrat leadership and majority to extend 
representation without taxation to nontaxpayers and to dilute the votes 
of the American taxpayers in the United States House of 
Representatives.

                              {time}  1345

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I would merely urge the gentleman to 
recognize that Puerto Rico has 4 million citizens, and I don't know 
what planet he is living on, but everybody in the District of Columbia 
pays taxes. And I don't understand this continuing argument. I am 
curious to know what would happen if Dallas, Texas, didn't have the 
right to vote in the House.
  I would also remind the gentleman that the United States District 
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia has already ruled that 
this matter is not unconstitutional.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman 
from New York (Ms. Velazquez), my good friend and classmate who is the 
Chair of the Small Business Committee.
  Ms. VELAZQUEZ. Madam Speaker, I come before this House of 
Representatives, and I would like to speak not only on behalf of the 4 
million American citizens who live in Puerto Rico, but also on behalf 
of the seven American Puerto Ricans who lost their lives in Iraq 
fighting to protect our Nation.
  Today I rise to remove the muzzle from the mouths in support of the 
close to 5 million U.S. citizens' voices that are represented by the 
Delegates of the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa and the 
Resident Commissioner of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. I say voices 
because that is all their representatives in Congress are allowed to 
utter at the well of this House of Representatives. It is time to allow 
them to also act on behalf of their constituents in this Chamber by 
allowing them to vote in the Committee of the Whole House.
  Right now these Members are allowed to fully participate, not only 
debate, but also vote at the committees on which they serve with 
distinction. The change proposed is very measured. It simply allows our 
respected friends and colleagues to vote in an additional committee, 
the Committee of the Whole House.
  Why are my colleagues from the other side of the aisle so unwilling 
to allow them in this committee? They do not seem to mind them in the 
other committees. Madam Speaker, my Republican colleagues have even 
placed the Republican Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico in several 
committees, including Foreign Affairs.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle claim that this rule may 
have constitutional problems. The reality is that the courts don't 
agree with this. I will tell my colleagues on the other side of the 
aisle, you cannot pick and choose which court decisions you agree with 
or you like. That is not how democracy works.
  But as you all know, the Committee of the Whole House does not vote 
on final passage of legislation. It carries out similar work as the 
standing committees.
  The only thing this new rule does allow is for our Delegates and 
Resident Commissioner colleagues to vote in a committee. The difference 
for their constituents is that this committee is not located in a small 
room, but meets here in this Chamber for all to watch.
  Today's debate is about whether this House believes it is right to 
give these Members the opportunity to express their positions and 
values through the act of voting out in the open. Openness is a strong 
democratic value that all of us should support.
  I want to emphasize this. These men and women are Members of this 
House. Let us help them express the voices of their U.S. citizen 
constituents by allowing them to vote in this committee as well.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, at this time I am happy to yield 2 minutes 
to the distinguished ranking member of the Committee on Resources, the 
gentleman from Fort Yukon, Alaska (Mr. Young).
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Madam Speaker, I rise to thank my distinguished 
colleague from Maryland, the majority leader, for introducing this

[[Page 2144]]

resolution, but I am forced to oppose it.
  The voting rights we are considering today are so limited in scope 
that they are merely symbolic, which has been said. Under the 
gentleman's resolution, the Delegates and Resident Commissioner will 
never be able to cast a vote to determine the final outcome of a vote, 
because if it were to be decisive, there would be an automatic revote 
on which they could not participate. As odd as it may seem, when it 
doesn't count, it counts. And when it counts, it doesn't count, as my 
good friend from California said.
  Madam Speaker, this proposal falls far short from what we should be 
doing to address the way our Nation currently deals with its insular 
areas, and that is why I am unable to support this legislation. As 
chairman of the Resources Committee in the mid- to late 1990s, we led 
an effort, we, this side, not that side, led an effort that would have 
specifically addressed the question of political status of the 4 
million American citizens that reside in Puerto Rico. That bill did 
pass this House by one vote, but the Senate failed to act on it.
  In the last Congress, my good friend and colleague from Puerto Rico, 
the ranking member of the Insular Affairs Subcommittee, Resident 
Commissioner Luis Fortuno, revived this effort after 5 years of 
inaction. He introduced a bipartisan legislation that was followed with 
the recommendations set forth by the White House Task Force on Puerto 
Rico's Status Report to Congress.
  Puerto Rico has been a U.S. territory with an unresolved political 
status since our Nation acquired the island in 1898. Puerto Ricans have 
been citizens and have honorably served in our Nation's Armed Forces 
since 1917. Close to 60 of them have already paid the ultimate 
sacrifice in our Nation's war against terror in Iraq and Afghanistan.
  These 4 million U.S. citizens deserve more than just symbolism. They 
deserve a permanent resolution to the question of their political 
status.
  Madam Speaker, I say respectfully, it is time we act honorably and 
give them the right to vote as a State.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 
minutes to the distinguished chairwoman of the Congressional Black 
Caucus and my good friend from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick).
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the resolution. 
The Delegates vote in committees. They are assigned the task. They 
spend the hours, and they deserve the vote in the full House. There is 
no reason, except for an act in 1995 that caused them to lose that 
right to vote in committees, Committee of the Whole, and here this 
resolution talks about voting in the Committee of the Whole.
  We need their vote. They are citizens of our country. They work, they 
pay taxes, they fight our wars. There is no reason that they would not 
be allowed, not just the Committee of the Whole, as was mentioned just 
earlier, they also need that final vote on legislation. When you fight 
wars, and we are in some now, and some of their people are fighting, 
they ought to be represented and have a voice in this Congress.
  At the same time, and I don't want anybody to mistake, the District 
of Columbia, who has over 700,000 residents, more than some of our 
States who have two Senators and a Congressperson, not being allowed 
the right to vote? Something is very wrong with that in this country 
where we live. And I believe that this is the first step to regain what 
they lost earlier, but it is certainly not, I hope, the final step.
  It is important as we go forward and as we acknowledge Congresswoman, 
as I call her, Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, my good friend, 
Congresswoman Donna Christensen and the Representatives from Puerto 
Rico and Guam and Samoa Islands, that they fight our wars, they pay 
taxes in D.C., and they serve in our Congress. So I rise to support it, 
and Members of the Congressional Black Caucus take a unanimous position 
that we support this legislation. We ask for its immediate passage, and 
we come back and give D.C. statehood that they have earned and should 
have.
  Citizens from Guam, American Samoa, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Puerto 
Rico and Washington, D.C. have paid taxes and have protected the 
Constitution of this country in our military. Some of our colleagues 
who have been fortunate enough to serve Americans in this august body 
have protected it as Members of Congress. It is now time for us to 
protect the rights of those citizens to at least be able to vote in the 
Committee of the Whole. It is a first step toward equity, equality and 
egalitarianism for so many people who have given so much but have 
received so little with regard to having a voting representative in the 
United States Congress.
  Right here, in Washington, D.C., citizens were not allowed to even 
vote for President until the adoption of the 23rd Amendment to the 
Constitution in 1961, but which actually occurred in 1964. Right here, 
in Washington, D.C., citizens were not even allowed to vote for their 
own Mayor or local form of government until 1974. Right here, in 
Washington, D.C., as I face the setting sun, thousands of white 
tombstones, honoring some of the souls of individuals from Guam, 
American Samoa, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico and Washington, 
D.C. face us as immortals. These citizens, about six miles away from 
where I stand at Arlington National Cemetery, have paid the highest 
price for freedom any individual will ever pay. These citizens--hard-
working, women and men, some of whom have served and are still serving 
our country in Afghanistan and Iraq--two centuries and thirty-one years 
since the Declaration of Independence, do not have the right to full 
representation in Congress. I applaud my colleagues for beginning the 
process that, I hope, will ultimately allow the citizens from Guam, 
American Samoa, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico and Washington, 
D.C. full voting representation in Congress. This is but a small step, 
but it is a step in the right direction. It is right, it is just, and 
it is time.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, at this time I am very happy to yield 2\1/
2\ minutes to my very hardworking friend from Grantville, Georgia (Mr. 
Westmoreland).
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Madam Speaker, legislation to allow Delegate voting 
should have appeared on the 100-hour agenda because it would fit snugly 
under the agenda's general theme of symbolism over substance.
  In fact, to bolster their case, the bill's advocates insist that 
Delegates' votes will be meaningless. But it is not meaningless. We 
have a written Constitution that clearly outlines who receives a vote 
in Congress. The principle is as clear as it is simple. The Members 
will be chosen every second year by the people of the several States. 
The Constitution doesn't provide exemptions to those rules in cases 
where it feels good, it is seemingly irrelevant or is politically 
expedient.
  Residents of U.S. territories reap the benefits of the world's 
biggest economy; they are protected by the greatest military in the 
world, and they have coveted access to the 50 States. Yet territories, 
by definition, are not States. This status comes with pros and cons. On 
the one hand, they maintain a greater deal of autonomy, independent 
identity and self-determination. On the other hand, territories don't 
get the same representation in Congress as States do. This is a prime 
example having your cake and eating it, too.
  There are many reasons to oppose this legislation. For one, it makes 
no sense in the people's House where representation is determined by 
population for Puerto Rico's 4 million to get the same vote as American 
Samoa of 57,000. It makes no sense to give Delegates a vote that 
doesn't count if it counts. And it makes no sense to pretend that this 
effort is anything but political opportunism.
  But those aren't the most important reasons for opposing this bill. 
The most important reason is that it plays fast and loose with the 
constitutional limitations on who can vote on the floor of this House. 
We are not members of a backyard club making up rules on who gets to 
vote as we go along.
  When we took this job, we swore to uphold the Constitution, and that 
is what I am doing by opposing this legislation today. If supporters of 
this bill think it is important to give Delegates a vote on the House 
floor, I urge them to draft a constitutional amendment, not a 
constitutional runaround.
  I ask and I say to the majority's argument with us, it is not with 
us, it is with the Founding Fathers and the writers of the 
Constitution.

[[Page 2145]]

  I ask my colleagues, and especially those from the great sovereign 
State of Georgia, to oppose this legislation.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield to 
a continuing champion of this subject for 3\3/4\ minutes, the 
distinguished gentlewoman from the District of Columbia, most deserving 
of statehood, Ms. Norton.
  Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding and for 
his gracious introduction and work on this debate.
  The other side really doth protest too much. Most Delegate votes, of 
course, don't carry the day, so a revote is not necessary.
  If the vote doesn't count, if the vote is only symbolic, then it 
certainly has not been worth 2 hours of votes to adjourn, as if the 
world was coming to an end. It certainly has not been worth the insults 
to the Delegates. It certainly has not been worth the disgrace to the 
House of Representatives to have Members of this venerable House come 
down and take to the floor to argue against the right to vote that has 
been upheld by the Federal courts of the United States. It certainly 
isn't worth besmirching your name in that way, and besmirching ours 
because that debate has occurred here.
  The matter before us is no longer subject to debate in a political 
body in our political system because that matter has gone the full way 
in our system. And the courts in our system, my friends, have the last 
word in our system on matters of constitutional right. You have got to 
understand that.

                              {time}  1400

  Using regular order, Mr. Speaker, right after my freshman year I 
wrote a memo arguing for the Committee of the whole vote. The Democrats 
didn't handle this matter lightly. Nobody in 200 years had argued that 
Delegates should have a vote on the House floor; they sent the memo to 
outside counsel, then they subjected it to debate in the Rules. The 
first day of the 103rd Congress the Republicans argued strongly against 
the matter. And then they did something very unusual, they took the 
House to court and lost in the district court and the court of appeals. 
This is a system of laws in which we work.
  They had two more times to debate in the courts, in the trial court 
and in the court of appeals. They finally had their way politically. 
They had their way, notwithstanding what the Federal courts had found, 
and they yanked the authority, court-approved authority of Delegates to 
vote out of the rules the moment they came to power, showing no respect 
for the Delegates, and an insult to the Democrats who had tried to 
maximize participation in the people's House.
  I was thrilled and grateful to get that vote then, I welcome the vote 
now, but it is very hard to be grateful to the House or anybody else 
for a vote you are entitled to. A vote that offers so little for 
Americans who have given so much should be hard even for the other side 
to resist.
  The test for the 110th Congress is not the Delegate vote, however. 
The test is the District of Columbia House voting rights bill, where we 
left off at the Judiciary Committee.
  I want to thank Representative Tom Davis and the cosponsors of that 
bill. I want to thank the Democrats. I can't go anywhere in my own 
caucus that they don't say, when are we going to get to vote on your 
full House bill?
  The Democrats have devoted decades of energy to full voting rights. I 
ask that the House bring forward H.R. 328 so that the House can vote on 
a full House vote for the District of Columbia.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I am going to ask unanimous consent to 
yield the management of the time to my colleague from Pasco, Washington 
(Mr. Hastings).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, as I do that, I would like to yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Cherryville, North Carolina (Mr. 
McHenry), a hardworking Member.
  Mr. McHENRY. I thank my colleague.
  Madam Speaker, today the House Democrats continue their abuse of 
power. They are pushing forward a measure to allow the territory 
Delegates, nonvoting Members of Congress traditionally, actually, not 
Members of Congress on a technical basis because they don't represent 
States, their constituents don't pay Federal income taxes, they are 
going to allow these individuals to cast votes and even preside when 
the Chamber meets. So let's have a quick Q&A on this; let's talk 
questions and answers here.
  Why would the Democrats do this? Because 80 percent of the territory 
Delegates are, hold for an answer here, they are Democrats. They want 
to cushion their numbers. Why is this an abuse of power? Well, there is 
this little thing we Americans call the Constitution. It says, ``The 
House shall be comprised of Members chosen by the people of the several 
States,'' not territories, not mayors of cities allowed to vote on this 
House floor, not any individual, but ``comprised of Members chosen by 
the people of the several States,'' not non-State territories. But 
plainly the Democrats are cushioning their numbers and abusing their 
power.
  The Democrats' power grab is a continuation of the abusive policies 
and actions they have taken since day one in this institution. Since 
day one they have shut down all debate. Since day one they have shut 
down the committee process. They held open a vote to change the outcome 
because they were losing on the vote. They ran through the Speaker's 
special interest project affectionately known as TunaGate, and all 
without fulfilling their pledge of working a 5-day week. In fact, in 3 
weeks we only worked 40 hours in this House. That is a new Democrat 
majority, that is a continuation of the abuse of power.
  What we have to do today is vote down this legislation that is, 
first, unconstitutional, and second, an abuse of power by the Democrat 
majority.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this measure.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished woman from the Virgin Islands, my good friend, Dr. 
Christensen.
  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Thank you for yielding, Mr. Hastings.
  Madam Speaker, I rise as a representative of the people of the U.S. 
Virgin Islands, proud Americans who willingly and gladly serve this 
country in every way, including the ultimate sacrifice, as I have said 
on two occasions on this floor this morning, and who only seek the 
fullest representation possible under the Constitution of the United 
States, and that is purely and simply what H.R. 78 does. I thank the 
Democratic leadership, Mr. Hastings, and my colleagues for their 
support.
  Just as it did in 1992, the rule granting Delegates the right to vote 
in the Committee of the Whole includes a mechanism which provided for 
an automatic revote in the full House of any of the amendments which 
passed or failed by a margin that included the votes of the Delegates. 
That rule and procedure was tested in Federal court and was upheld as 
constitutional.
  While this is less than perfect, as is often said, we must not let 
the perfect be the enemy of the good, or, I add, the enemy of what is 
the right thing to do.
  Listening to the strong objections from the other side on the basis 
of unconstitutionality, taxation, and others which are not relevant to 
the discussion, I have to wonder if these same objections would be 
raised by my Republican colleagues, an issue that is clearly one of 
participation and inclusion, if there were four Republican Delegates 
and one Democratic Delegate.
  The one Resident Commissioner and four Delegates in the House of 
Representatives are the sole congressional representatives of over 4.5 
million Americans. It is apparently lost to my friends on the other 
side of the aisle that these Americans have no representation 
whatsoever in the U.S. Senate in addition to their Delegates being 
unable to vote in the House of Representatives on legislation that has 
great and enduring impact on the lives of those we represent.

[[Page 2146]]

  During the historic debate in 2002 on the resolution authorizing the 
use of military force against Iraq, for example, although I spoke on 
the record, I was not able to vote ``yea'' or ``nay'' on behalf of my 
constituents, many of whom I knew would soon be called upon to serve 
and die for their country.
  Madam Speaker, my fellow Delegates and Resident Commissioner have 
worked closely with all of you at the committee level, some of us have 
chaired subcommittees or will be doing so in the near future. It is 
therefore fitting and proper that we be given the right to vote in the 
Committee of the Whole once again. It worked well in the 103rd 
Congress; it does not violate the Constitution.
  We should be given this greater degree of participation in the 
formulation of the laws that affect the lives of the people who send us 
here to represent them. And then once we have passed this, we must go 
on from here to give the residents of the District of Columbia full 
voting rights in this body as they deserve.
  I ask my colleagues to respect your fellow Americans in the District 
and the territories. Do justice to your colleagues; let's get a 
unanimous vote for democracy. Vote ``yes'' on H. Res. 78.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2\1/
2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Garrett).
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Madam Speaker, I rise, too, in strong 
opposition to this resolution which violates the Constitution and the 
fundamental intent of the Framers of the Constitution as well, and it 
does so in four ways.
  First, it would allow Delegates to vote, even though our Founding 
Fathers intended that this legislative body represent the people of the 
States. The Constitution, Article I, section 2, clause 1, states, ``The 
House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen by the 
people of the several States.'' By definition, Delegates do not 
represent States.
  Secondly, this resolution violates the principle of one person, one 
vote.
  The average congressional district represents approximately 650,000 
people, but three of these areas have populations of less than 160,000 
people, and American Samoa has residents of less than 57,000 people.
  The Supreme Court has already spoken on this. In 1964, the decision 
of Wesberry v. Sanders, the Supreme Court said, ``To say a vote is 
worth more in one district than in another would run not only counter 
to our fundamental ideas of a democrat government, but it would also 
cast aside the principles of the House of Representatives elected by 
the people. That was a principle tenaciously fought for and established 
at the Constitutional Convention.''
  Thirdly, the qualifications for these Delegates are not the same as 
all the other Members of the House. Neither Puerto Rico, American Samoa 
nor the District of Columbia requires that their Delegates be a citizen 
of the United States for 7 years, as all other Members have to be.
  Fourthly, the Constitution requires that all Members be elected and 
``chosen every second year.'' Puerto Rico Delegates, however, hold 4-
year terms.
  Finally, Madam Speaker, it was a former Democrat Speaker of the House 
who said, ``It is very clear that a constitutional amendment would be 
required to give Delegates a vote in the Committee of the Whole or in 
the House.'' H. Res. 78 does not do this.
  H. Res. 78 obviously is not a constitutional amendment; it is, 
instead, an attempt to resurrect a shameful move done back in the 103rd 
Congress, back in 1993.
  I do not support, nor should the Members of this side of the aisle 
nor any Members of this Congress, an assault on the Constitution of the 
United States nor an assault on the people of this country as well.
  Vote ``no'' on this resolution.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, before yielding, I would just 
like for my distinguished colleague to reference two cases, Michaels v. 
Anderson, and the action of the United States District Court.
  And since you are so worried about the constitutionality, I would 
just urge that you read those two cases; it may add clarity.
  Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey. Would the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. I wish I had the time.
  Madam Speaker, as a matter of fact, with your permission, how much 
time do we have?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. For the majority, 8\1/2\ minutes before 
yielding, and 14\1/2\ minutes for the minority.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Perhaps you can get some time from your 
side.
  With that in mind, I had the good fortune, Madam Speaker, of 
traveling on two different occasions to American Samoa. I never met 
people that were more inclined to be patriots than the people of 
American Samoa. I had the good fortune of traveling there on each of 
those occasions with the gentleman now that I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to, 
my very good friend from American Samoa (Mr. Faleomavega).
  Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Madam Speaker, I have had a sleepless night in 
pondering and wondering how this day's debate is going to turn out, and 
it is most unfortunate that this issue has become divisive among our 
colleagues this day.
  Much has been said about America's insular territories and the 
District of Columbia. In fact, this is probably the first time in years 
that we have ever given this much attention to the privileges and 
rights of the five congressional Delegates, the privileges and rights 
of those of us who represent some 5 million fellow Americans that are 
part and parcel of this great Nation.
  Some have said that the insular areas don't pay Federal income taxes, 
and therefore why are we allowing our congressional Delegates to vote 
in the Committee of the Whole. In the first place, it is 
constitutional; we have been through that test already 13 years ago.
  The question of taxation without representation also comes to mind. 
And I submit to my friends on the other side of the aisle, it seems 
that at some period, at least in my humble opinion, at some period of 
time, if the Congress ever works its will to have the insular areas to 
pay Federal income taxes, that should we not also be allowed the right 
to vote?
  How ironic that here under the shadow of our Nation's Capitol some 
600,000 U.S. citizens pay Federal income taxes. And my distinguished 
colleague representing the District of Columbia for how many years has 
pled this case, no representation without taxation, but she pays taxes. 
So how ironic is it that we are talking about representation and 
taxation, and yet right under the shadows of our Nation's Capitol 
600,000 U.S. citizens are denied their due representation by my 
distinguished friend and colleague from the District of Columbia in the 
process. Where is the equity and fairness in the process, Madam 
Speaker?
  Much has been said about the population as a factor in this debate. 
And it seems that my friends on the other side have, almost to the 
point of making a mockery of the fact that I happen to have 70,000 
residents of my district that I represent, I make no apologies for the 
fact that I represent some 70,000 residents of the United States 
territory of American Samoa. I make no apologies for the fact that nine 
of my soldiers have died fighting for our country's interest in that 
terrible conflict in Iraq, and about 40 or more wounded. I daresay, I 
wonder if any of my colleagues have a constituency of 70,000 whose 
soldiers, eight of them I have had to personally escort their remains 
to my district, which is about only a 16-hour flight from here.

                              {time}  1415

  I make no apologies for the fact that I am here because this body 
passed a law some 26 years ago to allow my little territory 
representation. So if my colleagues on the other side want to introduce 
a bill to get rid of Delegate representation in this body, then do so. 
But don't come here and make these, almost an embarrassment, to suggest 
that my little constituency is less important to the fact that there 
are 36

[[Page 2147]]

million Californians living in California. Is it any different than the 
500,000 living in Wyoming, another half million living in Vermont, or 
other States of our great Nation? So let's not use population as a 
factor to suggest that because I only have 70,000 residents and some 
130,000 living throughout the United States, that because of that 
reason we should not be here.
  I submit, Madam Speaker, I am saddened that this has gotten to the 
point where we are caught in the crossfire, and here the congressional 
Delegates are caught in between the political movements that are going 
on.
  I respectfully request and ask my colleagues on both sides of the 
aisle to pass this proposed resolution.
  Madam Speaker. I rise today in support of 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. I thank my good friend and 
colleague the gentleman from Maryland--the distinguished Majority 
Leader for his initiative and leadership by introducing this resolution 
now before us for consideration.
  This is not the first time this proposed rule has been debated and 
adopted. In 1993, the 103rd Congress amended the House Rules in the 
exact manner we are discussing today. From 1993 to 1995, the House of 
Representatives voted to allow the Congressional delegates of the 
different territories to vote in the Committee of the Whole, with the 
caveat that if the outcome of the vote was within the margin of the 
number of Delegates voting, the Committee would rise and the House 
would revote the question without the participation of the Delegates. 
In 1995, the new Republican majority eliminated these provisions from 
the House Rules and our Congressional delegates no longer voted in the 
Committee of the Whole.
  In the lawsuit filed by our Republican colleagues challenging these 
Rules in 1993, the federal district court determined that the Rules 
changes were constitutional. As the district court held, the 
determining factor that rendered these proposed rules constitutional 
was the revote provision that was included. In the view of the court, 
this provision essentially made the vote meaningless as an exercise of 
legislative power--a power that is reserved by the Constitution to the 
Representatives of the States. This judgment was later affirmed by the 
U.S. Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit.
  Given that this amendment to the House Rules was adjudged to be 
constitutional only because it provided what was characterized as a 
meaningless vote, why are we discussing this legislation? I submit that 
we are here because although the privilege extended by this change in 
the Rules is meaningless as an exercise of legislative power, it is 
vitally important because it provides a forum for our representatives 
from Puerto Rico, DC, American Samoa, Guam, and the U.S. Virgin Islands 
to participate in the democratic process.
  As the Majority Leader explained on the floor of the House last 
Friday when asked the purpose of this legislation, and he said and I 
quote, ``the purpose is to honor democracy.'' Each of us has been 
elected by our home districts to represent their interests in the U.S. 
House of Representatives. Because we do not represent states we do not 
vote on legislation, but we do advocate on behalf of our constituencies 
nonetheless. The Rules changes contemplated here today represent a 
symbolic extension of our ability as Congressional delegates to 
advocate, to educate, and to inform our colleagues in the House of 
Representatives as they vote on legislation that impacts the lives of 
some 5 million of our fellow Americans who live in the District of 
Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, the U.S. Virgin 
Islands, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 
Islands.
  If our goal here in Congress is to produce the best possible 
legislation, would it not benefit us to consider and debate in the 
Committee of the Whole the potential impact of legislation on all 
Americans, including those 5 million Americans residing in the 
territories? For example, given the strategic importance of Guam in the 
Pacific and the billions of dollars the United States spends on our 
military presence in Guam, wouldn't legislation pertaining to Guam 
benefit from the perspective of Guam's representative? Also, given that 
the Resident Commissioner represents nearly 4 million Americans, 
shouldn't his perspective on initiatives that impact the people of 
Puerto Rico at least be considered as Congress deliberates on such 
issues?
  Another obvious benefit of this legislation would be that the votes 
taken in the Committee of the Whole would establish a voting record for 
our constituents to inform them of our positions on issues that affect 
the lives of all of our people. While we make every effort to ensure 
that those we represent here in Congress are familiar with our position 
on current issues, a recorded vote would provide evidence of our 
commitment to their issues of concern.
  Recently, concerns have been expressed that, in my opinion, only 
distract from the fundamental issue of honoring democracy by agreeing 
to these Rules changes. First, this is not an issue of party 
affiliation. We are here from both parties. Second, this is not an 
issue of patriotism. We are all Americans--just as in your districts, 
our soldiers from the territories sacrifice their lives and limbs to 
protect our freedoms. Third, this is not an issue of population size. 
Our populations range from 70,000 to over 3.4 million. We are each here 
to represent the interest of our respective areas--territories, 
district, and commonwealth.
  The Rules changes being considered to allow Delegates and the 
Resident Commissioner are important not because they would provide the 
territorial representatives a symbolic vote, but because they would 
enhance our opportunities to participate in the democratic process.
  These changes have been judicially affirmed as clearly 
constitutional. The passage of these rules gives Congress the potential 
to enhance legislation produced in the House. H. Res. 78 would allow us 
as Delegates and Resident Commissioner to better represent our 
constituents by providing a voting record through which they could 
evaluate our positions on national legislation.
  I strongly support this legislation and I urge my colleagues to 
support H. Res. 78, and allow the Delegates and the Resident 
Commissioner a vote in the Committee of the Whole on the State of the 
Union.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 
minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis).
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition 
to House Resolution 78. This is an uncomfortable decision for me since 
for many years I have tried to convince the Republican-controlled Rules 
Committee to grant my friend, the Representative from the District of 
Columbia, a vote in the Committee of the Whole.
  In the beginning I did so because the right to vote in the Committee 
of the Whole, which has little meaning in practice, carried important 
symbolic meaning to people who had no representation at all.
  Over the past 4 years, I have embarked on a journey to give D.C. a 
real vote in the House of Representatives. Working with Congresswoman 
Norton and numerous legal scholars and many colleagues on my side from 
across the ideological spectrum, we have crafted a bill that was 
politically neutral, gave real rights to the District of Columbia, and 
solved Utah's special problem created in the last census to boot.
  The Speaker of the House has been a cosponsor of my legislation. The 
majority whip says he expects the bill to be brought up quickly this 
session. It is clear that if our bill, the D.C. FAIR Act, were brought 
to the floor today, it would pass with solid support from both parties.
  Today's resolution muddies the waters. It fails to recognize the 
fundamental difference between the District of Columbia and the 
territories. It ignores the carefully constructed bipartisan compromise 
we reached in the D.C. FAIR Act. It amounts, as The Washington Post 
opined today, to little more than ``dithering.''
  I hope this vote, which grants illusory voting rights to Delegates, 
is designed to expose the strong support that exists for full D.C. 
voting rights. But pardon me if I appear cynical.
  To the cynic in me, this resolution smacks of obfuscation. What the 
majority is doing today threatens to delay action on the real injustice 
that has plagued the District for more than two centuries. I am looking 
for assurances that this is not the case.
  Admittedly, we could have avoided this awkward grouping of 
governmental apples and oranges if the Republican leadership had 
brought the bill to the floor at the end of last year. The bill was 
ready. It is ready now, too. It is time for the new majority to not 
just talk the talk.
  What is proposed today in H. Res. 78 is not a politically neutral 
solution. It adds four Democrat votes and one Republican. 
Traditionally, when we have

[[Page 2148]]

added votes in the House, we have done so in a politically neutral 
manner. Worse, this resolution mixes the interests of the District of 
Columbia, the Federal district, the capital of the free world, whose 
residents pay Federal income taxes, with those of the territories.
  This mushy thinking is what has led to nearly 200 years of no 
representation for District residents. H. Res. 78 distracts attention 
and saps energy from the movement we have created behind D.C. voting 
rights. It is confusing and allows Members to check a box that in 
reality is not being checked.
  Still it is tempting to support this, if only to get more Members of 
Congress acclimated to voting to expand representation for District 
residents. But this is a sham, and I am not going to be part of it. I 
can't condone grandstanding and symbolism when real reform is so easily 
within our grasp.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I heard someone say the vote 
counts, and it doesn't count. But every time I see the scroll 
indicating that another American soldier has died, that is a count that 
adds up, and that count is firm. The people of, the residents of Puerto 
Rico and the Delegates lose the lives of their soldiers in that count 
along with those of us from the respective States.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 
minutes to the gentleman from Puerto Rico (Mr. Fortuno).
  Mr. FORTUNO. Madam Speaker, I am the only Republican afforded a vote 
under H. Res. 78, and I want to thank the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Hoyer) for introducing this bill. Having said that, I also want to 
thank the gentleman from Alaska, Resources Committee Ranking Member Don 
Young, for bringing this issue to the appropriate perspective.
  What the House really needs to do for the almost 4 million citizens 
that I represent before the Senate, the executive branch, as well as 
the 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 to 
this day remain disenfranchised. Puerto Rican Americans have been 
citizens since 1917, and we have served with distinction and valor in 
our Armed Forces and have defended our Nation in every battlefield 
around the world. I will say that 18,000 served in World War I. Over 
65,000 served in World War II, and I must say, the oldest surviving 
veteran of that war was my constituent, Mr. Emiliano Mercado, who died 
today of natural causes at the tender age of 115 years.
  More than 48,000 Puerto Rican Americans served in Vietnam; 430 of 
them were killed and 3,000 were wounded. Close to 2,600 Puerto Rican 
National Guard volunteers and U.S. Army Reserve soldiers mobilized for 
Desert Storm.
  So far, I have lost 56 constituents in the global war on terror. I 
regularly visit our soldiers at Walter Reed Army Medical Center. Every 
time I visit with our soldiers, our true American heroes, I cannot help 
myself but think that none of them have been able to elect their 
Commander in Chief, only because they reside in a territory. If they 
were to reside in one of the States, and they could because we are U.S. 
citizens, they would have been able to vote for the Commander in Chief. 
This is morally wrong in the 21st century.
  We are about to commemorate the 90th anniversary of Congress granting 
U.S. citizenship to the people of Puerto Rico, yet we still cannot vote 
for our President, nor vote in this Chamber, nor vote on legislation 
that affects us.
  Congress has an unfinished agenda with Puerto Rico. The 4 million 
citizens that live in Puerto Rico should finally be given the 
opportunity to make an educated, fair and democratic choice regarding 
their final status preference.
  After 108 years of territorial status and 90 years of being U.S. 
citizens, we are tired of waiting. The people of Puerto Rico deserve 
better, and we have earned our right to be heard.
  I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this resolution, but I bring 
it back to the bottom line, and the bottom line is that we have 
unfinished business with Puerto Rico as well as the U.S. territories.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield such time as he 
may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the distinguished 
minority leader.
  Mr. BOEHNER. Madam Speaker, let me thank my colleague from Washington 
for yielding.
  I remind my colleagues that when the session started, as every 
session has started, we raise our right hands and we swear to uphold 
and defend the Constitution of the United States. That is our solemn 
obligation.
  The Constitution outlines who has the right to vote here in the 
House. It clearly spells out that the Members from the States have the 
right to vote. Over the years as Delegates came to this House, they 
were granted the privilege of voting in the committee. That is not 
something spelled out in the Constitution.
  I could describe what is going on here today is an outrageous grab of 
power by the new majority; a breach of the trust of the Members here. 
That is if it weren't such a silly idea.
  To say to the Delegates that you can vote as long as it doesn't 
count, but if your vote counts, we are going to revote it, I think that 
diminishes the stature of the House, diminishes the stature of the 
Delegates, quite frankly, to say that they have a vote, but only if it 
doesn't count, because if it counts, there is an automatic revote under 
this rule that is outlined today.
  I think it does demean the House. I think it undermines our 
responsibility to the American people. And I think that this should not 
be on the floor today.
  The process by which this bill came to the floor, no committee 
hearings, a short Rules Committee hearing. We heard earlier today about 
the problems with the rule and how it was crafted. And here we are 
having this debate once again.
  I was here in 1993 when this issue was brought to the House the first 
time. The debate was probably more rancorous then than it is today.
  But it saddens me that there was no discussion about this with the 
minority. There was no advance notice of it until last Friday when the 
majority leader outlined the schedule for this week. So here we are, no 
opportunity to have a real conversation between the majority and the 
minority party about doing this.
  Over the course of the last 3 weeks, and actually before that, going 
into December, I have done everything I can to reach out to the Speaker 
and the majority leader to try to work here in this House in a 
bipartisan way on the issues the American people care about. And it 
seems, though, over the last 3 weeks that more we reach out and offer 
our hand of bipartisanship, it is slapped away.
  It happened last night up in the Rules Committee on the rule that 
brought this to the floor, and I am saddened by it. We have an 
opportunity to work together. We have an opportunity to do what the 
American people expect of us. But if we are going to do it together, we 
need to live up to our promises, and we need to live up to our 
commitments.
  I don't think that what we are doing on the floor today helps that 
process at all. And so while it would be easy for me to describe this 
as a power grab, I could if I thought this meant something, but it 
means nothing. This is symbolism at its best. And in the process of 
creating symbolism for a few, I think we diminish our roles as serious 
legislators here on behalf of the American people.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds 
merely to respond to the distinguished minority leader that we offered 
in the Rules Committee a motion that they denied, and that was to have 
an opportunity to have a substitute. An amendment was made in order if 
the gentleman had chosen to make that amendment, and he chose not to.
  But I say to those who argue that there is symbolism involved here 
that

[[Page 2149]]

indeed there is. But death is more than symbolism. Death is real, and 
the persons who die that come from the 5 million persons that these 
Delegates and the Resident Commissioner represent are real people. They 
and their families need this symbolism.
  Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield the balance of our time to 
the distinguished gentlewoman from Guam (Ms. Bordallo), my good friend.

                              {time}  1430

  Ms. BORDALLO. Madam Speaker, I rise in full support of House 
Resolution 78, which would grant a measure of symbolic participation 
for the Delegates in the Committee of the Whole.
  Our chairman referred to General Blaz earlier. He was a distinguished 
Delegate representing Guam, and he was a member of the Republican 
Party. But the participation is neither Democrat nor Republican here; 
it is American.
  Let me say a few words about my district, the island of Guam. Some 
would point out that Guam's population is small, with only about 
160,000 residents. I would point out that Guam has lost seven soldiers 
in the Iraq war, far more per capita than most communities other than 
maybe American Samoa. If our Nation had the same percentage of deaths 
in the Iraq war as Guam, the death toll would be more than three times 
the current toll. In other words, when it comes to joining the military 
and dying for our country, Americans from our island have more than 
contributed our share.
  Some would say that Guam does not deserve this new level of 
participation. I would respond that you have not met the people of Guam 
who survived a brutal enemy occupation during World War II. You have 
not heard their stories of loyalty to our Nation. You have not learned 
of their confinement in concentration camps, of their being beaten and 
beheaded. You have not seen and felt their patriotism.
  Our ability to participate in the Committee of the Whole would make 
these sacrifices all the more meaningful for us as Americans. It means, 
Madam Speaker, that my colleagues will recognize us for who we are, 
members, members of the American family.
  Some would say that the test for our participation is our level of 
taxation. I say that you surely misunderstand the promise of America 
and the meaning of democracy. Democracy is founded on voting and 
participation. Would you teach this lesson to the Iraqis? Have we 
become this cynical as Americans that even symbolic participation is 
tested by the taxes that we pay? Is the greatest test the willingness 
to defend the Nation or the 1040s? Is the greatest sacrifice that made 
by our troops and their families or that made by our tax accountants?
  If you would deny your fellow Americans, the people of Guam, this 
small bit of symbolic participation, the greater loss is our Nation's 
loss of its promise to the world of a democracy that is inclusive and 
that values all of its citizens. The loss is the ideal of American 
democracy, however imperfect. The loss is the recognition of a cynical 
Congress that wants to know how much taxes you have paid, not how much 
sacrifice that you have made for this great land. The loss, ladies and 
gentlemen, is not Guam or the territories or the District of Columbia. 
It is the Nation's.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, do we have any time remaining 
at all?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida has 15 seconds 
remaining.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. In that 15 seconds, I would ask my friends, 
the Delegates, if they would just stand and have America know 
something, that I am getting ready to cast a vote for them. They cannot 
cast a vote for themselves. How long does it take for 5 million people 
to be represented in this body?
  I thank my colleagues.
  Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. Madam Speaker, I rise today in 
opposition to H. Res. 78.
  This bill reverses the last 12 years of precedent and returns our 
House Rules to a questionable practice of delegates voting in the 
Committee of the Whole.
  Our Constitution clearly states that Members of Congress should be 
chosen by residents of States.
  As much as we appreciate the contribution of our great territories 
and the District of Columbia, they are not States.
  If the other side would like to change that, they are welcome to 
propose a constitutional amendment.
  Instead, this bill makes an end run around the Constitution by 
granting Delegates this privilege.
  Opponents are arguing that the courts approved this practice as long 
as the House re-votes on an issue if the Delegates make a difference in 
the outcome.
  We are taking time away that we could be spending on more important 
issues by forcing a superfluous voting exercise on every closely 
divided issue.
  This was a bad idea in 1992. A Chicago Tribune article at the time 
said: ``This change would subvert the Constitution to give the 
territorial delegates the power to vote, but guarantee that any time 
their votes really count, they won't be counted.''
  And this is a bad idea today. Today's Washington Times editorial 
said: ``Despite Democratic protestations to the contrary. it's hard to 
see this rule change as anything other than an attempt to add four more 
votes to their majority.''
  Frankly, we are creating a rule today that will waste our time and 
waste the American people's time.
  Mr. HONDA. Madam Speaker, as chair of the Congressional Asian Pacific 
American Caucus, I strongly support H. Res. 78, a resolution that would 
restore the privileges of the House Delegates representing the District 
of Columbia, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa, as well 
as the Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico, to cast a vote in the 
Committee of the Whole.
  For the past 12 years, Delegates and the Resident Commissioner have 
been deprived of the ability to sufficiently represent the voices of 
their constituents. The time is long overdue to restore this privilege.
  Of great significance to the Asian Pacific Islander community, the 
resolution would give greater voice to the approximate 170,000 U.S. 
citizens in Guam, and the approximate 60,000 U.S. nationals in American 
Samoa.
  Permitting the Delegates and the Resident Commissioner to vote in the 
Committee of the Whole improves the legislative process and increases 
the degree to which the House of Representatives accurately reflects 
needs of American citizens and nationals. In this regard, every 
American benefits with a truer democracy.
  On behalf of CAPAC, I urge my colleagues to pass this measure.
  Mr. HOYER. Madam Speaker, I am proud to be joined by House Democratic 
Whip Clyburn, House Democratic Caucus Chair Emanuel, Vice Chair Larson, 
and of course the distinguished chairwoman of the Rules Committee in 
sponsoring House Resolution 78.
  This measure will restore voting rights in the Committee of the Whole 
for the four House Delegates and Resident Commissioner of Puerto Rico.
  In fact, this measure is identical in substance to the rule that 
operated successfully--and constitutionally--from 1993 to 1995.
  The purpose of this resolution is simple:
  To honor democracy in every corner of the United States of America;
  To provide that all people who are subject to the laws and 
jurisdiction of the United States have a voice in their national 
legislature; and
  To give to the elected representatives of the District of Columbia, 
the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa and Puerto Rico--
constituent parts of this country--the ability to register their views 
and take a stance on issues that are considered in the most important 
and representative committee of the house: the Committee of the Whole 
House on the State of the Union.
  During the 103rd Congress, House Delegates, as well as the Resident 
Commissioner, were granted the privilege to cast a vote in the 
Committee of the Whole, a body comprised of all House Members whose 
function is to expedite consideration of bills and amendments on the 
House floor while ensuring that debate is fair to both sides of the 
aisle.
  This right is a logical extension of the Delegates' right to serve on 
and vote in the House committees--a right, I must stress, that was 
granted in the 1970s and to which no Member of this body whom I know 
has ever objected.
  The measure that we will vote on today is identical to the rule that 
existed in the 103rd Congress, which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 
District of Columbia held in 1994 was constitutional.
  To ensure that the provision complies with article I of the United 
States Constitution, in

[[Page 2150]]

the event that a matter before the Committee of the Whole is decided by 
the margin of the Delegates' votes, the measure provides for an 
automatic re-vote in the full House, where Delegates and the Resident 
Commissioner may not participate.
  Now, I want to address some of the misinformation that has been 
directed at this measure by opponents whose desire to defeat this 
resolution is more intense than their fealty to the facts.
  I have heard opponents contend that this measure confers 
``representation without taxation.''
  That is false.
  The residents who will benefit from this measure do indeed pay taxes 
in the form of Medicare and Social Security.
  At a time when the President's own economic advisors predict that 
these two programs will go bust if changes are not made in the next few 
years, I for one believe residents of the five territories should have 
a voice in shaping a bipartisan consensus that shores up the financial 
health of these vital programs.
  I have heard opponents contend that the average congressional 
district is 630,000 and that American Samoa, with a population of 
roughly 70,000 is too small to deserve even a symbolic vote.
  However, opponents making this argument omit the inconvenient case of 
Puerto Rico, whose population of almost 4 million would entitle it to 
as many as six seats if it had full representation.
  They also omit Wyoming, whose population of only 515,000 puts it well 
below the average congressional district.
  I have heard opponents contend that the five votes will slow down the 
legislative process and distort outcomes.
  According to a 1994 article in the Congressional Quarterly Almanac, 
``Of the 404 times that delegates were eligible to vote during the 
103rd Congress, only three times--all in 1994--did their vote prove 
decisive, triggering an automatic revote.'' Twice the outcome was 
reversed, proving that the rule worked.
  My friends, I would submit to each and every one of you that 
something magical happens when 435 Representatives from the 50 States 
come to this floor to vote on behalf of their constituents.
  Simply put, the genius of deliberative democracy achieves its fullest 
expression.
  We hear each other out on issues of the day.
  We get to know one another as something more than Members.
  We come to understand the needs and aspirations of one another's 
districts, whatever our political leanings.
  And through this process of personal interaction, we enact laws that, 
when we are at our best, make our country better.
  By granting a limited but important vote to five of our colleagues, 
we will be honoring the deliberative democratic process.
  In doing so, we will improve the legislative process and the degree 
to which the House of Representatives accurately reflects the views of 
the 300 million Americans who are subject to laws it passes.
  In that sense, every American, as well as our democratic system of 
government as a whole, stands to benefit from House Resolution 78.
  I urge my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of 
my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 86, the 
previous question is ordered on the resolution.
  The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam 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.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 226, 
nays 191, not voting 18, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 57]

                               YEAS--226

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     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
     Lowey
     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
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     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
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     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
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     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)
     Rohrabacher
     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--18

     Boucher
     Brady (TX)
     Buyer
     Carson
     Castor
     Costa
     Cubin
     Everett
     Fattah
     Frank (MA)
     Herger
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Lucas
     Norwood
     Pickering
     Radanovich
     Salazar

[[Page 2151]]



                              {time}  1507

  Mr. CLEAVER changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  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.
  Stated for:
  Mr. FATTAH. Madam Speaker, had I been present for the vote on H. Res. 
78, I would have voted ``yea.''
  Stated against:
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Madam Speaker, on rollcall No. 57 on H. Res. 78, 
I am not recorded because I was absent due to illness. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``nay.''

                          ____________________